House passes semi-automatic gun ban after 18-year lapse

It's a very interesting gamble the Democrats are making here.

Firstly, they went with 15 round magazine capacity rather than 10 rounds. That makes a lot of sense because many pistols come with magazines that hold more rounds than 10 as standard, but not generally as many as 20 rounds.

Secondly, they not only decided to ban AK and AR style rifles, but also the "pistol" variants. And included a long (though incomplete) list of firearms that are exempt, simply to show that plenty of guns will still be available for purchase. Which interestingly includes the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, and though I didn't see it, I suspect the Ruger PCC with conventional stock would still be legal for sale. [This allows for the counter-argument that if the "assault" features don't matter to the function of the firearm, needs can be filled with these kinds of rifles instead]

Thirdly, they grandfather existing privately owned firearms and magazines affected by the ban, whilst mandating safe storage of them.

All of this will seem totally acceptable to many many people. So whilst some are sure it will fail in the Senate (which it may), that's not the gamble. The gamble is the mid-term elections. I wouldn't be surprised if certain Democrats in the House voted 'Nay' to help them retain their seat. But I think when the bill fails in the Senate, the Democrats will point to that in the mid-terms as a way to gain support in key states. And they've left long enough between it passing the House and election day, that the Senate can't say they didn't have enough time.

Now, if we see another public mass shooting with a legally purchased "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazines" between now and then, the Dems can simply say "The Senate Republicans could have acted, but didn't."

It's hard to say how this one will work out in the long term.

The "political" theory afoot is that the "turncoat" (r) Senators have passed "the one" bill they were willing to vote for, and will stand fast against any new one(s).
That's well within the give-and-take of political posturing.
And posturing and grandstanding were much in evidence here. One of the reasons this thing stalled, and came close to a tie vote was from all the Representatives stuffing this pig with as much pork as they could. All so that they could campaign in the mid-terms with "I brought you this [imagined free goodie], but dastardly [Senator] took it away from you, Hiss!, Boo!"

Now, back to THR-appropriate vitriol. Note the lack of a Sunset clause in this one. Also, the change to one-feature definitions. More importantly, the "you can't change one feature and still sell them" lesson they learned from the last one. "They" wanted no "work arounds" on this one. No thumbholes, no bullet button, none of that.

Also, note that most of the MSM reporting is that there has been a "lapse" in any sort of AWB. Which is counting on the tiktok memory spans of too many.

The only thing the previous AWB did was cement AR prices above a grand apiece. Which persisted after 2004 for far too long. Which also cemented the "it's cheaper to build" notion, too. How could it not, when you could build, from parts, the equal to a US$1200 Bushmaster for only around US$600?

One of the Motions in Hooper is to reconsider Miller as well as the "common use" argument in Heller. We already have "one step" enshrined in legal opinion. If "Arms" includes those suitable for common military use, then the whole "weapons of war" argument falls apart.

This type of bill around this time of year is usually about signaling. It’s passed just before the House goes on August recess to campaign in their districts for November. I wouldn’t be surprised if it never makes it to the Senate calendar since they’re going to be busy with the reconciliation bill (climate and inflation policies).

It lets Reps go back home and say they “did something” and generated a short-lived headline.

hso said:

Which is why injunctions would stop enforcement and would fast track to SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Don't count on it.

So what's the realistic time line for this to go to the house floor for the final vote? And in the chance it passes when does it go into effect? Still a relatively new gun owner and planning my gun purchases around the chances for this going thru. Been buying so many other non scary rifles this year and there's a few I want to get still

My question is, are California fins an expection?


EDIT: And also, the republicans are ready to compromise this time. For every one of us calling to say NO to these kind of bills, they also have the other side calling as well. Alot of them are wanting to retire and don't care either way.

This is a very monumental bill.

The bill would be a mess to enforce. I think the sponsors are not expecting it to pass the Senate this time either, so are they didn't include a lot of the details necessary to make it "work" like it would have to work if it were really passed.

But the risk is high one of these bills go through eventually. We had one before (1995-2004) and I can imagine the circumstances (mass shooting incidents) that would drive politicians in the future to vote for it, based on fallacious reasoning that is popular with the press and people who don't know better.

In the long run, we need to attack the major contributing cause of mass shootings -- and many youth suicides -- which is the widespread use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) drugs in treating educational and behavioral problems in young boys in school. This causative link is beginning to be recognized and understood. It is looking more and more like this is the one thing that has altered young male behavior so much.

So if you want to work on something practical we can do to prevent the next major "gun control" law from going through, bring attention to the issue of SSRIs and how they are linked to virtually every mass school shooter we've ever had in this country. This isn't a legal or "Constitutional" argument, but in practical terms, it is a major part of the problem and something that can be accomplished.

But all the people on here said this had no chance of passing the House. It was dead in committee.

I have no faith in the Senate to keep this off Biden's desk. No faith in the Supreme Court either.

Mars5l said:

So what's the realistic time line for this to go to the house floor for the final vote? And in the chance it passes when does it go into effect?

Click to expand...

Passed the House on Friday (29 July 22) by exactly one vote.

It goes to the Senate where they have to send it to various subcommittees which then argue it's merits & deficiencies. It's marked up with any changes the Senate finds mete, and returned to the House for reconciliation. It's very, very late for things to drop into the Senate's calendar. And the Senate usually takes August off, and tables things for the next 5-6 weeks.

So, this would have to go to and back from the House. Then get out of committee to be argued on the Senate Floor. If that passes, it goes to the WH for a signature. If I remember the text, it goes into effect 30 days after being enacted.

CapnMac said:

Passed the House on Friday (29 July 22) by exactly one vote.

Click to expand...

4 votes. It was 217-213.

The Senate is a 50-50 split. But 10 Republicans voted for the last gun control package so I don't expect it to be dead in the door.

I am flabbergasted at the proud ignorance exhibited by some during the floor debate. Some legislators actually think that bullets fired from modern-looking rifles travel faster than bullets fired from traditional-looking rifles and do more damage….blissfully unaware that “assault weapons” and guns on the “protected list” both fire the same ammunition.

herrwalther said:

But all the people on here said this had no chance of passing the House. It was dead in committee.

I have no faith in the Senate to keep this off Biden's desk. No faith in the Supreme Court either.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But I haven't seen anything related to outright confiscation, so, people should start planning accordingly. Let the panic buying, and the subsequent skyrocketing of prices, of assault rifles begin.

When you've got a spare 30-40min yall should definitely check out this video.

I don't know what the general consensus here is on John Lovell is but he truly is a good dude.

Most of the video speaks to the heart of this conversation.

Make you're mind up about what you're going to do NOW and find peace through Jesus Christ.

Good Ol' Boy said:

Make you're mind up about what you're going to do NOW and find peace through Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much why I don't watch any of John Lovell's videos. Push your religion on me, and I'm out. A person's religious or spiritual views are their own. They don't belong in politics, or pushed upon the rest of society.

WrongHanded said:

This is pretty much why I don't watch any of John Lovell's videos. Push your religion on me, and I'm out. A person's religious or spiritual views are their own. They don't belong in politics, or pushed upon the rest of society.

Click to expand...

Trying to remember one time where he pushed his religion... All I am getting is a whole lot of, "this is what I believe, make up your own mind"...

badkarmamib said:

Trying to remember one time where he pushed his religion... All I am getting is a whole lot of, "this is what I believe, make up your own mind"...

Click to expand...

Who, John Lovell? He's mentioned it in more than one video. Perhaps not that one (I didn't watch it), but it's been in others.

12Bravo20 said:

Don't get your hopes up that this dies in the Senate with all of the turncoat RINO's. I don't trust my own Senator. Blunt voted for the last gun control bill and could care less since he is retiring after this election.

Click to expand...

If somehow it were to end up being signed by Dementia Joe. There will be lawsuits filed because it violates the Constitution.

Insignificant bill said:

If somehow it were to end up being signed by Dementia Joe. There will be lawsuits filed because it violates the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Lots and LOTS of laws violate the Constitution; they're still laws. Remember, the Supreme court once ruled that a black man has no rights a white man is bound to honor, or that separating people due to their skin color was Constitutional. Or that it was not a violation of the Constitution to imprison people of Japanese descent. Or that the NFA and GCA do not violate the 2nd Amendment. (Or my favorite: "no right is absolute.") I could probably write a small book on all the Unconstitutional laws on the books, past and present. My point is: don't put your faith in the courts; they've burned us plenty of times.

HighRoadRover said:

In the long run, we need to attack the major contributing cause of mass shootings -- and many youth suicides -- which is the widespread use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) drugs in treating educational and behavioral problems in young boys in school. This causative link is beginning to be recognized and understood. It is looking more and more like this is the one thing that has altered young male behavior so much.

Click to expand...

The problems that lead to mass shootings go way deeper than this. There aren't any easy magic solutions.

WrongHanded said:

Who, John Lovell? He's mentioned it in more than one video. Perhaps not that one (I didn't watch it), but it's been in others.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you said "push" the first time. Yes, he does mention it, among other of his core beliefs, in the context of the videos. But I have never heard him "push" his religion, or other beliefs. Part of the video posted by @Good Ol' Boy, and others of John's videos, are using his beliefs as examples, telling people they should determine their own core beliefs, and where they will draw their line, before someone else draws it for them. And, if you listen to John when he mentions his beliefs, he, as I, will advocate that beliefs are personal, and all should be respected, even if disagreed with.

There is nothing wrong at all with Lovell's references to religion. It is the basis for many of his general beliefs, so they are relevant, and I do not see why someone would be so offended and intolerant of him expressing his beliefs and their basis.

I don't know him, but I would be very happy to have him on my side if things went sideways.

Balrog said:

...I do not see why someone would be so offended and intolerant of him expressing his beliefs and their basis...

Click to expand...

The answer to your question can be found in John 15:18-20.

And that's all I have to say about that. This thread is on the fast track to massive editing and closure.

badkarmamib said:

Sorry, you said "push" the first time. Yes, he does mention it, among other of his core beliefs, in the context of the videos. But I have never heard him "push" his religion, or other beliefs. Part of the video posted by @Good Ol' Boy, and others of John's videos, are using his beliefs as examples, telling people they should determine their own core beliefs, and where they will draw their line, before someone else draws it for them. And, if you listen to John when he mentions his beliefs, he, as I, will advocate that beliefs are personal, and all should be respected, even if disagreed with.

Click to expand...

Yep, I've got no problem with other people having whatever beliefs they choose. And if I wanted to hear more about it, I'd ask.

When people who are speaking of firearms and practical matters, start talking about their religion along with it, I go get my information somewhere else. Pretty simple really.

If anyone is having a hard time understanding why, think of a religion you totally disagree with and really dislike, and then imagine that be intermingled with the topic you're actually interested in.