Here's Comes The New Firearm Legislation 2015 Version

Status
Not open for further replies.
New Today:

Michigan:

HB4565 would change 1931 PA 328 and would remove the requirement to store an unloaded firearm in a case (or broken down) when transporting them

HB4564 would change 1994 PA 451 and also would remove the requirement to store an unloaded firearm in a case (or broken down) when transporting them

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Michigan-Gun-Laws

Oregon HB3553 would create a tax credit for the cost of background checks for transferring firearms

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Oregon-Gun-Law-HB3553/State-Law/30555

South Carolina H4149 would clarify the definition of chief law enforcement officer and provide that any NFA application presented to them must be processed in 15 days

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-South-Carolina-Gun-Law-H4149/State-Law/30552
 
New Today:

South Carolina H4168 would require firearm owners to report any lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours of discovery or face penalties

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-South-Carolina-Gun-Law-H4168/State-Law/30581

US HB2283 doesn't have any text yet but the subject states 'To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.' It also has 31 sponsors at this time.

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation-HB2283/Federal-Law/1290
 
New Today:

Michigan:

HB4590 would change 1927 PA 372 to strike the word 'pistol' and replace it with firearm, in other words requiring every firearm to be licensed with the state

HB4592 goes along with HB4590 and changes the titles of several offenses from pistol to firearm, for example 'Forgery on pistol firearm — license application'

HB4591 also goes along with the above bills changing the word pistol to firearm

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Michigan-Gun-Laws

Nevada AB203 would allow concealed carry on the 'property of the Nevada System of Higher Education' or in a vehicle (on any school property) as long as it locked in a secure container that is attached to the vehicle

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Nevada-Gun-Law-AB203/State-Law/30588

Pennsylvania HB1217 has no text yet but the title states 'In firearms and other dangerous articles, providing for firearm rental at shooting ranges' and the bills author is Angel Cruz, a rabid anti-gun legislator so we can pretty much guarantee this bill would stop ranges from being able to rent guns.

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Pennsylvania-Gun-Law-HB1217/State-Law/30594
 
New Today:

Michigan:

HB4590 would change 1927 PA 372 to strike the word 'pistol' and replace it with firearm, in other words requiring every firearm to be licensed with the state

HB4592 goes along with HB4590 and changes the titles of several offenses from pistol to firearm, for example 'Forgery on pistol firearm — license application'

HB4591 also goes along with the above bills changing the word pistol to firearm

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Michigan-Gun-Laws

Michigan's attempt at UBCs?
 
Michigan's attempt at UBCs?
New Today:

Pennsylvania SB777 would repeal section 6111(f)(2) from the uniform firearms act. If passed all firearm sales would have to go through an FFL

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Pennsylvania-Gun-Law-SB777/State-Law/30600

Wisconsin SB159 would make long guns subject to the same restrictions has handguns (waiting period, FFL check etc)

Scarey part is the bill has 31 sponsors

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Wisconsin-Gun-Law-SB159/State-Law/30597
 
The text for Pennsylvania HB1217 came in today and as expected it's a nightmare of a bill.

The bill would require any range that rents guns to require the person renting the gun to fill out an application that includes all their personal information INCLUDING their social security number, visual inspection of their drivers license and a background check, a juvenile delinquency check and a mental health check.

It would also require the range to be licensed by the state and renew that license yearly.

This bill should be called the 'how to kill legitimate businesses in one fell swoop' act

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Pennsylvania-Gun-Law-HB1217/State-Law/30594
 
Another one for Michigan, a good one in my opinion.
HB4593
Title: Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol license application and licensing fee; provide exemption for veterans. Amends secs. 5b & 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425b & 28.425l).

Removes the administrative and licensing fees for Concealed Postols Licenses if the applicant is a Veteran.

A VETERAN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED AN APPLICATION AND LICENSING FEE UNDER THIS SUBSECTION.
 
Another one for Michigan, a good one in my opinion.
HB4593
Title: Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol license application and licensing fee; provide exemption for veterans. Amends secs. 5b & 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425b & 28.425l).

Removes the administrative and licensing fees for Concealed Postols Licenses if the applicant is a Veteran.
Except it uses a definition of 'Veteran' that only includes those who were in a declared war, or a police action that the expeditionary medal was awarded for. All others who served are out of luck.

Here's the definition the bill uses

35.61 Uniformity of service dates for veterans; definitions, dates, and terms.

Sec. 1.

In order to provide for the uniformity of service dates for veterans, the following dates and terms shall be applicable to all acts of the state relative to veterans:

(a) “Veteran” means a person, who served in the active military forces, during a period of war or who received the armed forces expeditionary or other campaign service medal during an emergency condition and who was discharged or released therefrom under honorable conditions. “Veteran” also includes a person who died in active military forces.

(b) “Spanish-American war” means the period beginning on April 21, 1898, and ending on July 4, 1902, includes the Philippine insurrection and the Boxer rebellion, and in the case of a veteran who served with the United States military forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro province, means the period beginning on April 21, 1898, and ending on July 15, 1903.

(c) “World War I” means the period beginning on April 6, 1917, and ending on November 11, 1918, and in the case of a veteran who served with the United States military forces in Russia, means the period beginning on April 6, 1917, and ending on April 1, 1920.

(d) “World War II” means the period beginning December 7, 1941, and ending December 31, 1946, both dates inclusive.

(e) “Korean conflict” means the period between June 27, 1950, to January 31, 1955.

(f) Civil war and confederate veterans who served between April 12, 1861, and May 26, 1865.

(g) Indian wars. Since the Indian wars were fought intermittently over a period of years, the determination as to whether a person shall be considered as having rendered military service during these wars will be carefully considered by the state veterans' trust fund. January 1, 1817, through December 31, 1898, is considered Indian war period.

(h) Mexican wars. Since there were several skirmishes involving the Mexican border, such as Mexican border troubles 1911-1916; Veracruz expedition April 21, 1914, to November 26, 1914; punitive expedition into Mexico, March 15, 1916, to February 5, 1917; therefore the persons rendering military service in any of these skirmishes shall be considered veterans of the Mexican wars between 1911 and February 5, 1917.

(i) Future dates. The period beginning on the date of any future declaration of war by the congress or the beginning of an emergency condition recognized by the issuance of a presidential proclamation or a presidential executive order and in which the armed forces expeditionary medal or other campaign service medals are awarded according to presidential executive order and ending on a date prescribed by presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the congress.

(j) Veterans of the Korean conflict and veterans having served after January 31, 1955, in an area of hazardous duty for which an armed forces expeditionary or Vietnam service medal was received or veterans having served in the Vietnam era, which is that period beginning February 28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975.
 
Except it uses a definition of 'Veteran' that only includes those who were in a declared war, or a police action that the expeditionary medal was awarded for. All others who served are out of luck.

Here's the definition the bill uses
Correct, and that covers most of the Afghan and Iraq vets. Virtually all who have been in the military since 2001 received the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary medal, or the respective campaign medals in lieu of the GWOT-E medal. The GWAT-S (service) medal probably won't qualify.

In my case, I wore my Iraqi campaign medal in lieu of my GWOT-E medal, my DD-214 shows both. I'm going to contact the bill sponsors and see if they would be willing to alter it to include all vets.

Edit: And done. E-mails sent to the 5 sponsors to urge them to amend the bill to incluce all veterans. Thanks for pointing that out Kaeto.
 
Last edited:
I was in the Navy 1981-1985. And by that definition my service is worth less than garbage to the state of Mi.
You, and thousands of other veterans, are why I just e-mailed the sponsors to alter the bill. Your service and sacrifice is worth no less than mine, or anyone else's, and should be recognized and appreciated the same as anyone else's.

I made sure to express that notion to the bills sponsors. That all veterans should be included in the bill, regardless of when, where, or how they served.

Thank you for your service.
 
I was in the Navy 1981-1985. And by that definition my service is worth less than garbage to the state of Mi.
At least you served during Grenada. My service in the USAF was from 1977-1981 so I'm not even eligible to join the American Legion.
 
I was on West-Pac deployment during Grenada so I didn't get any expeditionary medal. And without that it still means nothing.
 
US Senate bill SB 1385 has been introduced. It has no text yet but the title states 'A bill to prohibit the Federal Government from requiring race or ethnicity to be disclosed in connection with the transfer of a firearm'

This has been a long argued point about form 4473. Not only is it invasive but the question is literally asked twice on the form.

So why exactly does ATF need to know what your ethnicity is?

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation-SB1385/Federal-Law/1300
 
Well the sneaky liberal gun haters thought they would try to pull a fast one and release a new bill over memorial day weekend. The bill HB2546 is authored by none other than the queen of gun haters, New York's Carolyn Maloney and while it has no text yet the title says it all:

"To prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by, a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance coverage"

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation-HB2546/Federal-Law/1301
 
...prohibit the sale of a firearm to, and the purchase of a firearm by,
a person who is not covered by appropriate liability insurance....
That's just the kind of "common sense" garbage that
gains emotional traction.

Any thought/visibility on sponsors yet?
 
The text of US HB2380 has come in. We knew it was going to be bad but we had no idea how bad. The bill, sponsored by the rabid gun hater Carolyn Maloney (D - NY) would require the following:

All gun show promoters must register with the US attorney general's office and pay a yearly fee, the registration would include a photo and fingerprints of the promoter.

Registered promoters would be required to inform the AG's office 30 days prior to any show, including the date, location and hours of show and a complete list of all dealers at the show. Each dealer must sign sign a 'register'.

The show promoter would be required to maintain a register of all information for each show they held for as long as the AG office requires.

All dealers would be required to run background checks on all sales and deliver them to the AG's office no later than 10 days after the show

The AG's office would be allowed to enter any gun show at any time during operations to inspect any and all records.

Additional fines and punishments would be enacted for any promoter or dealer found to be in violation of any of these new rules.

Finally the bill would require a report be deliver to congress every two years detailing how the details about what firearms are being sold at gun shows.

Like we said, a real nightmare of a bill

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation-HB2380/Federal-Law/1294

Also the text of US HB2374 has come in. Written by another New York gun hater, Peter King, the bill looks rather harmless at first with most of the text dealing with trafficking of stolen firearms and use of a firearm while committing a crime but you need to dig in deeper to find the real issues.

On page 6 of the text there is the creation of a national stolen gun registry to be set up by the US attorney general's office. It then goes on to require all firearms bought by any dealer (from anyone except a dealer) must be checked against this gun registry before the purchase can be completed (page 8 of the bill).

The seller must provide identification 'that satisfies the requirements of section 202 of the REAL ID Act of 2005'

The delayer would then have to check each firearm against the database. The information they would have to provide to the government would be the name, address of the seller along with the type of identification they provided along with 'the name of the manufacturer, and the caliber and serial number, of the firearm'.

If the firearm is not stolen the system would provide a unique identification number for that transaction that the dealer must retain.

If that doesn't sound like a firearm registry we don't know what does

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation-HB2374/Federal-Law/1303
 
Well folks hang on to your hats because the anti-gun crowd in Washington is on the move. 6 new bills in the house and senate today with all but one 100% anti-gun.

And the question begs to be answered, why is it when Democrats file anti-gun measures do they never release the texts right away. Each and every one of these has no text yet but we know exactly what all but one of them are about:

US-SB1474 & HB2613 would require all new firearms to be 'personalized' within a few years and would then require FFLs and gun manufacturers to start retrofitting existing firearms with personalization technology. The bill would also set up a fund to reimburse these businesses via your tax dollars.

HB2612 and SB1473 would set up funding (again with your tax dollars) to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention. Do we really need to study something that is so blatantly obvious?

HR289 is another boondoggle 'expressing that gun violence is a public health issue' and pushes for more background checks, among other things:

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation
 
Last edited:
New today

New York:

S05918 would allow gun dealers, gunsmiths and gun manufacturers with a concealed carry permit to travel anywhere in the state for employment reasons

A08212 would make concealed carry permit holder's information exempt from public disclosure

A08215 is a power play by assemblyman Peter Lopez that probably wont work. Rent control in NYC expires this week and city Democrats are in a panic to get it renewed so Mr. Lopez wrote this bill that would extend rent control but would also repeal the SAFE act.

https://amgoa.org/Proposed-New-York-Gun-Laws

US Congress

SB1520 would amend the stalking laws as related to prohibition of firearm ownership to add in intimate and dating partners

SB1529 is basically a blackmail bill, it would give preferential treatment for grants to states that report all recovered firearms in the 12 months preceding the grant application

HB2710 has no text yet but the subject states 'To revise various laws that interfere with the right of the people to obtain and use firearms for all lawful purposes.'

https://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top