Senate Democrats Introduce Bill Requiring A Federal Firearms License To Buy And Own A Gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll bet that even Mark Kelly (husband of Gabby Giffords!) would not vote for it. After all, he has to be elected in Arizona. Surely he knows that voting for gun control is electoral suicide in Arizona

And yet Mark Kelly did ,in fact, get elected in Arizona.
 
And yet Mark Kelly did, in fact, get elected in Arizona.
He got elected without making a big deal about gun control. And he's downplaying gun control again this year. Not everyone is as clued in as we are. But if he actually voted for a gun control bill (especially one like what we're discussing in this thread), the public would be awakened and his political career would be over in Arizona. Just as Beto O'Rourke is unelectable in Texas, because of what he said about guns.
 
NJ’s Cory Booker represents a state that already requires a license to buy a long gun and ammunition, not to mention the dual permit system to purchase a handgun. The state uses a license system as a source of revenue and to enforce control across all state and municipal departments.
Funny how that didn't prevent the racist shootup of a kosher grocery store in Jersey City a couple of years ago...
 
NJ’s Cory Booker represents a state that already requires a license to buy a long gun and ammunition, not to mention the dual permit system to purchase a handgun. The state uses a license system as a source of revenue and to enforce control across all state and municipal departments.
NJ also requires a pistol permit to buy a bb or pellet pistol!
 
No worries. A bill like this is not going to fly. They're playing politics for their constituents. Midterm hullabaloo is in full swing. The left has alienated so many of the groups that they exploited to pass gun control in the past, including law enforcement.

My state of Illinois is one of the few states that require a firearms ID (FOID) and they're talking about eliminating that. This is actually a good time for gun owners... the best I've seen. The trend is to eliminate red tape based on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Any proposed federal law requiring registration and licensing is dead on arrival.

But don't get complacent. We've had a lot of victories in the courts. Keep fighting the good fight!

~ Beck

Don't hold your breath. The way ISRA has gone off on a tangent, they aren't helping the situation any more. The FOID has been combined with the CCL - for those that can afford one. Otherwise, the FOID is still in force. And at least one legislator from "up north" is trying to either reduce the time on the FOIDs from the 10 year term they made it over a decade ago back to just 5 years AND/OR upping the "fee" to at least $50 (or more) from the current $10 fee. Go read some of the posts at illinoiscarry.com/forum/ and catch up.
 
The unintended consequences that would result from passage of this bill would be that this entire category of firearm restrictions would be challenged before the Supreme Court.
I don't think that the gun banners would like that... .
Not yet, they wouldn't. But give it another handful of years on the current trajectory and the gun grabbers will have the make-up they need in the court. We've seen recently what waiting for the right time to challenge precedent can do.

I do however think that this latest song and dance is just testing the waters...with a bit of mid-term rally cry mixed in.
 
If they want to start a Civil War. Seriously, American are not hearing it.

I'm keeping an ear to the ground on this and other gun control legislation. After Tuesday, the landscape has changed. Seems to be more support for limiting what was deemed "Shall not be infringed".
 
I know this is not the intended point but…

I’m sure an individual FFL (essentially) would mean no more 4473s…..

:rofl:
 
So the people who brand parents as domestic terrorists when they attend school board meetings to make sure their schools focus on educating their kids as opposed to teaching 5 year olds things they have no right teaching them want to decide who gets a license to own a gun. What can possibly go wrong?
 
The "Usual Suspects" are calling, again, for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed...
The only way the 2nd Amendment could be repealed would be to start with a clean slate, via a "Convention of States." The mischief that would be unleashed with such an idea would be unimaginable. The precedent would be the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which, it may be recalled, was intended to "revise" the Articles of Confederation.
 
The only way the 2nd Amendment could be repealed would be to start with a clean slate, via a "Convention of States." The mischief that would be unleashed with such an idea would be unimaginable. The precedent would be the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which, it may be recalled, was intended to "revise" the Articles of Confederation.
True, and I suspect they know that, but they want to put another “catchy” word into the mainstream. The catchy word now is “repeal”, like the words “impeach”, “defund”, “science” etc, that came before.

Even without repealing the 2A, they can ignore and neuter it to the point where it really doesn’t matter, like some states already do.

I know a lot of folks put their “faith” into the SC and their upcoming ruling(s), but I’m not so optimistic, especially in light of current events.
Depending on lawyers and judges to define what is clearly understandable to begin with is a sure way to be disappointed when the tribal tides don’t go one’s way.
 
The only way the 2nd Amendment could be repealed would be to start with a clean slate, via a "Convention of States." The mischief that would be unleashed with such an idea would be unimaginable. The precedent would be the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which, it may be recalled, was intended to "revise" the Articles of Confederation.
Isn't a Constitutional Convention organized by states, not by population? And takes 35 states to agree on anything to pass?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top