https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/all-info Look what the Democrats have in store. proposed bill in the House, HR 127 (2020-2021), which would require licenses to be able to possess firearms and ammunition in the US, and would also require all individual firearms to be registered, with the owner's name, on file with the government. In case the implications of this proposed bill are not obvious to anyone, I would encourage people to look at the situation that's happened within areas in states that have already implemented similar sorts of measures to this. First, licenses will be required. Then, licenses will be routinely denied to most people, or revoked for the flimsiest of reasons, with little respect for individual rights. Individuals will also then be subject to imprisonment (without trial, civil contempt) and invasive searches of their home/property, using the existence of these registrations as evidence, if the individual does not hand over the item that is registered upon demand (which can be triggered by law for a variety of different reasons).
It would never pass. Even if it somehow did, there are already 200 million firearms and billions of rounds of ammo in circulation that they can't do a damn thing about.
But watch how much support this bill draws. It might not be that far from passing several years, or just a few decades from now. Or they'll talk of "compromise", and present a much more watered-down version of the bill, and over the years there will be this legislative creep, where the restrictions keep ratcheting up. There are all sorts of things conservatives thought "would never happen", and they ended up happening several decades later.
The Democrats decided long ago that abandoning support for the 2nd Amendment was a party goal, now sit back and watch how things go on Day 2 since they now run the whole show. Hope gun owning Democrats enjoy what they've wrought.
Well, yes - the Democrats actively work to make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Everyone knows this - look at CA NY and NJ. None of their unnecessary and ineffective restrictions are infringements, they say, because you -can- still own a gun of some sort.
I'm gonna put on my tinfoil hat and address the ammo "shortage" (HA-HA). We are not so much a "nation of laws" as a nation of LAWYERS. And just what do lawyers do best? They parse words, they split legal hairs.....consider the exact words of the 2nd Amendment "...the right of the people to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed". Take note that ARMS and AMMUNITION are not synonymous. Dry up the ammunition and all the background checks, red flag laws, magazine bans, etc., etc. become moot. Hell, give away AK-47s as pre-school participation trophies, without the means to fire them, big whoop. The logic? "We're not infringing on your right to own ARMS, own all you want, however the 2nd Amendment says nothing about AMMUNITION, so....". Keep in mind at the Battles of Concord and Lexington the British didn't march out of Boston to seize ARMS, they came to seize POWDER and SHOT!
Never fly. Firearms are protected by the 2nd; ammunition - and magazines - are an inherent part of their functionality are thus equally protected. Else, you could ban the Koran.
Keep in mind that the 2nd is interpreted under the same strict scrutiny standard as the rest of the fundamental rights. Any attempt to loosen its interpretation will necessarily set precedent for your other rights.
Said I had my tinfoil hat on! In a few short days we'll have at least 2 years to see all manner of things "fly" we once thought unable to.
Seems to me the 3rd Amendment is the only one that HASN'T had it's interpretation "loosened" over the past 50 years.
Once the democrats add more justices to the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment will be re-interpreted and law abiding citizens will become criminals. And of course, the liberal authorities will come after the law-abiding middle class, while ignoring the criminals with their guns. I guess it is one of those "fundamentally changing America" kind of things. Concerning the regulation of ammunition, probably would be wise to stock up on reloading supplies if you are a gun owner.
I envy those of you who believe that the Constitution still has power when dealing with these people....If the Constitution still held merit in the eyes of those who currently control Congress and the White House then Alaska gun laws would be nationwide policy and non debatable. Seeing how it's a class 3 felony per 30 round magazine in NY and a license is required to even TOUCH a handgun in the store in NY it's safe to conclude that's not the case. Look no further than NY or California to see exactly how Democrats actually view the 2nd Amendment. I believe we may find ourselves in for a rude awakening if we hold onto the notion that the US Constitution is a firewall against this sort of thing. And at this point I wouldn't even put my faith in the Supreme Court to stand firm on this sort of thing at the federal level regardless of the majority in there. The only secure firewall against this sort of thing is the fact that millions of unregistered guns are already in the hands of people as well as mags and ammo. I would seriously not bet on any sort of legislation or documentation to stop these people from passing laws at this point as sad as that is to say.
Already going through my guns to decide which pile they go in. Pile One: Guns that stay in the house for licenses and registration should SCOTUS not strike this down; which this one likely will. Pile Two: My hide and bury somewhere not in my home or on the property my home sits on pile. My confiscation and federal red flag law proof pile. Luckily, in Missouri we don’t need to keep records of private sales, so even if you can prove I bought this or that gun at one time, you can’t prove I didn’t sell it at some some unknown time in private instead of burying it. Since you can’t force someone to prove a negative (prove you didn’t bury the guns we think you have but can’t prove it), no contempt of court charge can be made as a backdoor life sentence (give up the guns or stay in jail until you do). Luckily we have the Supreme Court and at least a couple of Dems that won’t go with along with every one of the proposals that are about to be put up for a vote; that includes expanding the court to cheat a way to disarming the citizens to make them more compliant for future rights taking.
Sorry, but just having watched the entire Democrat contingent AND the the courts, including SCOTUS, make like the Three Wise Monkeys when it came to obvious election law violations, my faith in ANY politicians or institutions protecting my "rights" of any manner has evaporated forever!
US Firearm and ammo licensing bill An incredibly bad and unenforceable idea. With well over 400 million guns in this country and billions of rounds of ammunition, attempting mass registration and licensing would enrage millions. The "I WILL NOT REPLY" response alone would mean easily half the supply would never be revealed by owners. Any attempt that extreme would result in bloody resistance by people who never would have dreamed of doing such a thing. Such a law would instantly manufacture by legislative incompetence tens of millions of felons on paper. I am immensely pleased that Biden replaced Trump. This is wonderful news on many fronts, many issues. The Second Amendment though, is an issue that Biden and his party are horribly wrong about. The irony here is that an incompetent and dangerous President left behind a US Supreme Court with five and a half (Roberts being the 1/2) secure, strict constructionist votes favoring the Second Amendment. There are many lawsuits being pressed hard now, to leverage that irony, those 5 and a half conservative justices, with all possible speed. So even if the proposed law comes to pass, it shall not live long against the legal onslaught that will greet it. Meanwhile, the distraction of anti/pro gun politics means we are doing nothing about Human Violence in this country.
Seems to me that is the intent- to do nothing about violence, but instead use it as an excuse to consolidate power. As the UN puts it: "Civilian firearm ownership undermines the legitimate power monopoly of the state." And they're right, except for the 'legitimate' part. But thats the trend of govt everywhere, even/especially in the US- to monopolize power.
Interesting that the UN believes gun violence should FIRST be addressed by the reduction of the number of firearms in the hands of the state: Reducing the existing State stockpile. The best place to start is with government arsenals, which by nature are easier to identify and affect than the diffuse civilian holdings. With large amounts of weaponry concentrated in a few locations, a focus on the State stockpile is the quickest way to make a dent in the sheer number of guns on the planet. Governments may consider large armouries to be necessary for national defence, but they overestimate their need: according to the Small Arms Survey, 38 per cent of military small arms in government arsenals are surplus to requirements. This represents not only a large waste of resources (in buying the guns, recording them, storing, maintaining and guarding them), but also a serious hazard to military and civilian populations living near accumulations of surplus weapons. In addition to the physical danger of explosions, surplus stocks act as a magnet for traffickers, insurgents and criminals, often with tragic results. The grave threat posed by surplus guns and ammunition has been formally recognized by the UN small arms process. A UN Group of Governmental Experts on surplus ammunition was established by the General Assembly in late 2007, and disposal of surplus weapons was one of the priority topics at the Third Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms and Light Weapons in 2008. The consistent advice is that governments should systematically identify and destroy their surplus stock. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/small-arms-no-single-solution
I see no dark or evil intentions, only foolish ideas in trying to address a problem. Both the Second Amendment supporters and the anti-gun supporters are seeking to do something about crime and violence. The two sides have very different ideas about how to achieve this. The anti-gun side literally thinks the inanimate object is the root cause of these human actions. The Second Amendment side believes the human beings are the root cause of human actions. I agree with one of the above, and with none of the conspiracy or "Control" story lines that have been cooked up over the decades.
By and large, yes, its stupidity. But a few in those groups, and the leaders of movements in particular, can be demonstrated to be guiding them deceiptfully. As prime example- when someone says 'we just want to make current laws more effective' while trying to get all semi-autos restricted, thats not stupidity, rather an agenda meant to dishonestly garner support from the ignorant.
Geez, the lakes, rivers and streams are likely to overflow with the added volume. Do you think the Dems will figure what’s going on when they don’t overflow?
Why you would make this post I do not know (I couldn't possibly imagine), but anyone doing the same is definitely screwed if the legislation passes someday. I don't think it can... but if it does, you're making it really easy for them to bend you over.
