Legislation would force polititians to choose sides on the 2nd Amendment

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
This legislation is a great idea and a win-win for the 2nd Amendment. Whether it passes or doesn't it will make all of the politicians choose sides and that will show where they really stand the article says. Wonder if that's true. Sounds like a good plan.


What do you think?





http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/h-r-4380-game-changing-gun-legislation-14877/

.
H.R. 4380: Game changing gun legislation?

By Conor Higgins, Communities Digital News



WASHINGTON, April 14, 2014 — There is a bill in Washington, quietly introduced by Steve Stockman, R-Texas, which has the potential to change the game on national gun politics. Of course there are many bills which sit idly on agendas, on committees, waiting to be read by those who could probably care less about its success or passage. All of these bills concerning firearm rights have a potential impact on the freedoms of American gun owners and the gun industry, but what makes H.R. 4380 different from most of those pieces of legislation is that it will be significant before it even passes.

This bill is a win-win for the Republicans, and a terrible losing situation for the Democrats.

This bill is important, it draws an important line in the sand and forces Washington to pick sides......This bill does not need to pass to make in impact, it does not need resounding support for it to have national repercussions, its passage would be monumental, but its failure would speak louder and more defiantly than its victory.
.

.

 

[ShelbyV8]

I like the bill. It will probably pass the house, but Reid will never let it see daylight in the senate.

 

[Davek1977]

n/m

 

[MEHavey]

None of the funds made available through the NICS Improvement
Amendments
Act of 2007 or the Community Oriented Policing Services
[COPS] Program
shall be provided to any jurisdiction which:

(a) maintains a registry of gun ownership; or
(b) conducts a program of gun confiscation directed at any firearm
which is not prohibited by Federal law

How would that affect/apply to states which have recently imposed bans/confiscatory turn-in of newly-prohibited weapons type?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

My prediction/thoughts:
- inconsequential
- will never make it anywhere, definitely never see a vote
- primary purpose is to get Steve brownie points with his base in TX

 

[JRH6856]

That's it. Politicians have more ways out of corners than any other species of rat. And lines in the sand are often blown away by the prevailing winds of indecision and rhetoric.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm not sure that the failure of this bill will tell us anything at all that we don't already well know. That most politicians, Dem or Rep, would agree to a gun registration bill if it was politically expedient to do so really should come as no surprise to any single one of us here.

One can claim that a "no" vote on a bill signifies whatever you want to claim it signifies, but that's so much opinion/editorial fluff and has no great pull anywhere. And most bills just wither on the vine, never seeing a vote. Claiming this will "force" anything greatly underestimates the ability of congress-critters to not do something they don't want to do.

 

[JSH1]

My prediction/thoughts:
- inconsequential
- will never make it anywhere, definitely never see a vote
- primary purpose is to get Steve brownie points with his base in TX

I agree. This is what you get when politicians decide not to do their job and simple are waiting for the next election. Since they aren't busy working on real legislation designed to pass, they instead introduce bills designed not to pass but to win political points.

 

[MagnunJoe]

DOA in the house. Will never make it to senate.

 

[Tirod]

If I interpret this, then the funds WOULD go to NY and CT to units based there which only prosecuted Federally restricted guns. Simply separate the unit's focus based on which set of laws is being enforced. The State's "fed" unit goes on business as usual, the "state" unit gets money from other sources.

Not enough teeth, and it's easily worked around.

I don't recognize the source, and the hopeful viewpoint tells me it's not a leading national news distributor. Should be obvious that this caters to the firearms community in intent, which automatically makes it suspect at the national level. It's almost non news.

Thanks for including some of the text, links only have been an issue lately.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Legislation would force polititians to choose sides on the 2nd Amendment

Didn't they do that when they took their oath of office?

 

[tyeo098]

Its to remind people when midterms come.
Its perfect timing.

 

[Ryanxia]

Let's not forget also, that if passed doesn't do much to protect us. 'Any gun that is not prohibited by federal law' well they would obviously ban an AR15 before they started to confiscate it.

 

[Dr. Sandman]

Stay positive! This bill is a good thing.

 

[Sam1911]

This bill is a good thing.

OK! Great!

What do you feel it will accomplish?

 

[vamo]

Would just be more of one chamber of a divided congress passing a bill that has no hope for even coming up for a vote in the other chamber. I think most of us know where a rep stands, or could easily find out.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but states with registration laws get their records completely separate from NICs, and use said records for confiscation if applicable. The proposed bill only covers NICs data which state governments already can't access.

 

[MarkDido]

Legislation would force polititians to choose sides on the 2nd Amendment

Didn't they do that when they took their oath of office?

^^^
This

 

[RPRNY]

What the author claims the House Bill will do was already done in the Senate. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...-votes-to-stop-us-from-joining-un-arms-treaty

Forty six Senators, all Democrats, opposed the budget bill amendment that opposed US ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty. The line in the Senate has been drawn.

The only interesting thing about this House Bill would be to see in a floor vote which RINOs would vote against it. My bet is that Boehner puts the kybosh on it and it dies a death in Committee with no vote.

 

[Fremmer]

Interesting!

 

[AKElroy]

- primary purpose is to get Steve brownie points with his base in TX

I believe getting "brownie points" with his base is the same as representing his constituents. Kind of refreshing, actually.

 

[Skribs]

Personally, I don't think much of this whole scenario. I could see it easily possible that someone would sign this bill, but after the 2014 elections turn around and provide funding to registration/confiscation that comes outside of the NICS checks. It seems to be such a specific blow that anyone could get around it with a little bobbing and weaving to achieve their goals later.

I also don't see how it would work as a checksum more than any other gun bill. What is so special about this one?

 

[cheesebigot]

I believe getting "brownie points" with his base is the same as representing his constituents. Kind of refreshing, actually.

I believe Colorado may have something to say on the contrary.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

So, the Constitution and oaths of office get back benched even further in overly defining one's loyalty to the same by dissecting the base documents of our country and expecting individual politicians to tell the truth.

This is pandering nonsense and an unwelcome distraction with all that they should be addressing nationally and internationally.

Besides, as any good lawyer will tell you, - if at all possible, in a legal environment - never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. If such a wondrous blowout is expected, than the perception of support already exists and nothing is really gained. If however, the vote coincides with an unfortunate incident... the results could be catastrophic.

And - looming legislation too often seems to provide a marvelous opportunity for coincidence.