Federal bill Sportsman's Act


PDA






Ryanxia
July 9, 2014, 05:44 PM
So coming up we have a Senate bill that will be introduced called the Sportsman's Act which has to do with hunting it sounds like but both sides have plans for Pro gun and gun control amendments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/09/new-gun-control-fight-brewing-in-the-senate/

Republicans want to overturn the ban on large-capacity magazines and assault weapons in the District of Columbia; expand the right to purchase or transport firearms and ammunition across state lines; limit when a military veteran can be denied a firearm due to mental illness; and allow gun owners to carry weapons into post offices or other federal sites.

So obviously we want to let our reps know which amendments we support and which ones we don't, does anyone know how quickly the amendments get voted on? Do we wait and see what amendments are proposed and THEN contact our reps? That's what I'm thinking.

If you enjoyed reading about "Federal bill Sportsman's Act" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim K
July 9, 2014, 07:21 PM
A snowball on the sidewalk today had a lot more chance than that bill does. Forget it.

We need to support pro-gun candidates (not fake "sportsmen"), contribute to their campaigns, and contribute to effective pro-gun organizations. (Watch for fake "Sportsmen for XXX" groups that are designed to mislead us.)

Support/oppose bills that have some chance of passage; wasting time and money on bills with zero chance or bills that are designed to be defeated for political reasons is not sensible.

Jim

barnbwt
July 9, 2014, 11:47 PM
A snowball on the sidewalk today had a lot more chance than that bill does
Granted, it is a remarkably cool year, so far.

The facts as I've seen regarding this bill, are that the Republicans are testing the waters as far as pro-gun legislation, to see how much interest there is. We've demonstrated loudly that there is no practical interest whatsoever in increasing restrictions, but what about relaxing them? Given how long it's been since we dared dream of gun friendly legislation at the national level, how would the congress-critters know if we'd even support them in the endeavor? The closest thing to a pro-gun move we've seen recently --universal reciprocity-- was widely met with shades of suspicion and ambivalence (some of the former for good reason, at least until we see a real bill drafted) and the lawmakers promoting it went largely unthanked. Why bother loosening restrictions in DC? Those guys can't vote for federal reps that matter, and won't vote Republican, in any case :rolleyes:

So, they send up a few trial balloons in a 'safe' non-controversial area like sport shooting to see if we'll fight half as hard for freedoms as we do against restrictions. Since the Dems own the Senate, of course they'll seek to add amendments of their own, while they can. But the fact that they'd be putting efforts at gun-restriction in a gun-centric piece of legislation should drive home the fact that they know they won't be pulling a fast one over on us this time.

BTW; what the hell, WaPo? "Bipartisan legislation?" You mean Manchin-Toomey? Really? The legislation so 'bipartisan' it couldn't even make it past the first vote and will probably cost Begich his seat? Four republicans apart from the supposed 'author' do not a bipartisan measure make :rolleyes:

Unlike the anti's, our side doesn't ever seem to even propose legislation, Hail Mary longshots or otherwise. I honestly have no clue what the NRA or any other advocacy group's goals are once they get the ear of the senate again. Do we have a plan, or is our opposition purely defensive?

TCB

rockhopper46038
July 10, 2014, 12:08 AM
What I have done is called my two Senators and informed them that unless the Amendments proposed by Cruz, Rand, Lee, et. al. are heard, (which is what Reid wants to stop) then I expect them to vote AGAINST cloture.

Ryanxia
July 10, 2014, 09:54 AM
What I have done is called my two Senators and informed them that unless the Amendments proposed by Cruz, Rand, Lee, et. al. are heard, (which is what Reid wants to stop) then I expect them to vote AGAINST cloture.
Interesting.

I hope these amendments materialize into something we can get behind (or stand in front of). We've done an excellent job of stopping further gun control on the federal level, it would be great to get over that tipping point and actually start to see some pro Gun legislation banging on the door.

Outlaw Man
July 10, 2014, 12:10 PM
GOA has been hammering this bill, despite its support from the NSSF. From my understanding it has the potential to benefit hunting, but most of the provisions are toothless and just pandering for votes for Democrat Senators up for election.

I've heard of potential pro-gun amendments from national concealed carry reciprocity to ending Operation Choke Point. Any of these will certainly kill the bill, which is, I believe, the desire of Paul, Cruz, etc. If they can force them to vote on legitimate pro-gun legislation they'll have to either support it or expose themselves for the anti-gunners they are.

oneounceload
July 10, 2014, 05:57 PM
But THIS little bit in the bill merits a LOT of support:

The bill has caused an uproar among conservation groups because of several contentious measures, key among them a provision to bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating lead bullets and other potentially toxic fishing and hunting equipment.

JERRY
July 10, 2014, 06:12 PM
Jim K is right. if you want meaningful laws which protect our rights, you need to start electing meaningful people.

alsaqr
July 10, 2014, 11:41 PM
The bill died today after a cloture vote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/hunting-fishing-bill-dies-sportsman-bill-108763.html

AlexanderA
July 15, 2014, 08:58 AM
barnbwt wrote:

I honestly have no clue what the NRA or any other advocacy group's goals are once they get the ear of the senate again. Do we have a plan, or is our opposition purely defensive?

The last time the NRA seriously went on the offensive was with FOPA, and that ended up giving us the Hughes Amendment. What did we get that was positive? An unenforcable "safe harbor" for interstate travel with guns, and the ability to buy long guns over the counter in gun shops across the country (not just in home state/contiguous state). That is, if you can get the out-of-state gun shop to sell you one. In return, we got shafted with the MG freeze that has made MG's all but unaffordable. Big time net loss for gun owners (IMO).

I would be very leery of the NRA "going on the offensive." The general culture at the NRA is a defensive one (but above all the culture at the NRA is all about raising money for themselves). I say this with sadness, because it's the best lobbying organization we have.

MErl
July 15, 2014, 10:01 AM
FOPA also got rid of ammunition tracking and put the registry prohibition into law.

It also seems that the rules for amendments have changed since 86.
What I have done is called my two Senators and informed them that unless the Amendments proposed by Cruz, Rand, Lee, et. al. are heard...

If the poison pills don't even get speaking time they cannot get into the bill.

Deltaboy
July 16, 2014, 09:52 PM
Good to see this bill DIE.

MachIVshooter
July 17, 2014, 01:18 AM
Big time net loss for gun owners (IMO)

The Hughs amendment was the ONLY downside to Volker-McClure. Are you cognizant of the abuses people suffered at the myriad tentacle ends of a rogue ATF from '68-'85?

barnbwt
July 17, 2014, 09:50 AM
Or today?

If you enjoyed reading about "Federal bill Sportsman's Act" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!