HR5005 full analysis

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

beerslurpy

member
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
4,438
Location
Spring Hill, Florida
I hereby attach a Word document with a detailed analysis of HR5005 and its effects on the US Code. I split it up to make it an easier read and also threw in a little commentary to make the more esoteric sections understandable.

edit: In case you miss it at the top of the document
green stars and text are commentary
plain text is current law
italics are bits that HR5005 adds to existing law
strikeouts are bits that HR5005 removes from existing law
 

Attachments

  • HR5005.doc
    51.5 KB · Views: 77
Last edited:
I knew I had to act when I saw normally excellent blogs were starting to trumpet this bill like the second coming.

When people see:
-NRA says something good about it
-Brady's frothing at the mouth

They conclude:
-awesome bill

Which is dead wrong in this case. I almost see this as a test to see how politically sophisticated the gun rights movement is, or whether we can be made into useful idiots and marginalized. Hopefully the word about how crappy this bill is makes the rounds and we get some real good changes made to it. But you guys have to start writing your reps and demanding real action on their parts.
 
Contractors getting the ability to move across the US without running afoul of laws has benefits, but also great problems.

i.e. Wackenhut Security armed with MP-5s guarding nuclear waste. No problem. Neu Jersey shouldn't be able to lock them up.

But, there should be a bone thrown to everyone else. Anything. They could have put in a definite end to the '86 ban. They could have put restrictions on the BATF, or loosened import laws allowing importers more leniency in import requirements (can't hope for pre-68 mail order, but simply allowing importers to import long guns wo new import marks [just mark down serial #s and push them out the door]. They also could have lowered the FFL permit ammount to $50 even, and required a legal process seriously "streamlined" wait, I'm getting an idea here for another thread.

I'm just saying, this ain't right, b/c in addition to nuclear site guarding, this could also justify the government giving machineguns to mercenaries. (not that they would do that... wait, I can see Blackwater)

I think it was posted earlier, you could arm illegal aliens with M-16s from NG armouries wo legal penalty under this statute (taken to extremes). This isn't good without a bigger bone thrown our way.
 
The NRA can be corporate whores sometimes. That doesn't make me love them. I think this is a corporate whoring bill, like the manufacturer liability protection bill.

I'm starting to agree with the Brady Campaign on more and more issues. I guess as they lose ground they become more mainstream. I checked out their site and they say NOTHING about CCW, despite two CCW wins in the past week or so. They are all talking about requiring NICS for all transfers, stopping illegal gun sales, and about these NRA-sponsored bills which make it so employers can't regulate if their employees can pack or not. Guess what, I agree with them 100% on all these issues. And I agree with them on this bill.
 
The sad thing is that the NRA could actually be fighting for things worth fighting for instead of finding ways to make the bradys look reasonable.

You would think that the NRA has run out of gun control to repeal.

Actually, I find it personally annoying that the NRA is pushing against private property like that (private in the sense of both privately owned and selective access), ESPECIALLY when there are enormous areas of public accomodation off limits to carry. For want of a little forethought, they end up coming across as being crazy. This is the sort of incompetence that conspiracy theories are made from.
 
This thing with them trying to tell employers what they can and can't do on their own property... that is just so dumb. It makes them look unreasonable, and it angers business owners, who are often conservatives and often would support the NRA. I support my employees packing on the job, but I want that to be my choice, not forced on me.

Their big all-time victory would be achieving national CCW reciprocity. They shouldn't bother with anything else. With 40 states being shall-issue, they have a real shot at passing something like this.
 
alright guys, well, lets try to do something (not that it has to work, mind you).

Let's think of what that bone should be, and put it in writing. We can find one of our more articulate members to draft up a letter, no more than 250 words long that we can modify (or not) and send to our reps.

It would outline the pointlessness of the current bill in its current state, and maybe a *reasonable* (bear with me here, folks. I know its using their language--and I feel dirty--but the first rule of communicating is speaking the same language) changes or ammendments. If we could get a healthy chunk of our members to mail it to their respective reps we could at least remind them that:

A) We Exist​
B) We sure as hell are staying on top of bills, and not just kowtowing to what the NRA says (God bless their occasionally misguided souls)​
C) We are WATCHING​

To be honest, I doubt we would see any changes at first, but these guys take letters to stand for more than one person. They figure for each letter that does get sent, a lot more actually thought about it.

So, what is your favorite little battle to fight?
 
Halfgone: I volunteer for the task. Most things I do badly, but one of the few exceptions is my writing ability.

What would I put in it? First, I would love to see 922(o) deleted but this is not remotely on the table. This is a must-pass bill and deleting 922(o) would be a poison pill and those two things do not go together.

My proposal is simple:

As written, this allows the Feds to designate security contractors who can bypass 922(o). Great. Let's give this same option to the state governments, to do with as they see fit. If the State of California wants to let private security companies do some guard work for some state facility, then they should be able to issue a permit or authorization. We just leave this open-ended! Let's not talk about it too much, but let's word it in such a way so that if, say, Montana decides to issue these authorizations to not just security companies, but perhaps any company, or maybe any individual, or whatever... well, this law will let Montana do that. In fact I can easily imagine the state of California giving these authorizations out to movie production companies too. We should keep it conservative and limited; Montana-state authorized people should not be able to bypass other state laws, like Fed contractors can.

The cool thing about this is that, on the surface, it looks like this is just adding more security options, beyond just Fed contractors. Everyone wants more security, right? But if we leave it undefined as to who the state can authorize, it creates the possibility that some particularly pro-gun state will start issuing these authorizations to all CCW holders, or all FFLs (including C&R), or perhaps to all citizens.

That's what I think we should do. It's a very small one-line change, it does something good without doing it in an obvious way, and it is realistic. It will only help us if some states decide to play along, but I'm pretty sure some of them will, and that's the best and most we can hope for right now.

If one of our more legalistic contributors would come up with the legalese, I'll write it as a letter.

Let's aim for a small victory, just make a crack in 922(o).
 
k, I don't know much about the law, but that sounds great! Those little *loopholes* that allow freedom minded people in government to make changes for the good. awesome. plus, it will read well to all of our reps, and even make it sound like we want to give them more power.

I think it's Awesome unless someone can point a fault out.

Thanks T-G.

HG
 
This bill makes permanent changes in gun laws that are no permanent.

Changes in appropriations bills only last for that fiscal year.

And repealing the old Brady crap saves taxpayer $$$ with not having to print and reprint.

Plus the last part on reciever importation voids the recent BATFE reciever ban.

This makes all changes permanent. Lots of these changes may be current policy but they can be changed when we get a new president.
 
PDF version

beerslurpy, nice document. I took the liberty of converting it to PDF, which should be viewable by more people.
 

Attachments

  • HR5005.pdf
    118.1 KB · Views: 14
There are three quid pro quos I'd love to see, in no particular order:
1. End NFA regulation of silencers
2. Lift the MG ban
3. Eliminate import restrictions. If it's legal to manufacture here, it should be legal to import.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top