I wonder if these amendments might allow a challenge of the NFA and '86 ban. I started a new thread here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=192296
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=192296
Last edited:
PRO GUN BILL NEEDS YOUR HELP TO PASS ASAP!
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
Smurfslayer
Member
I did. Frankly LAR, I'm not seeing an upside here. Please keep in mind that I *DO* empathize with you. I've gotten maybe 4 folks here to contact Congress on behalf of the NPS ban repeal. You would think we would collectively be all over that, but for whatever reasons nobody here seems interested enough. 5005 seems to make a few more 'protected class' exceptions, and that isn't the right way to go. Remember that every new codification creates yet one more arena for F-troop to occupy. This bill is basically adding contractors to the LE Exemptions; an extension of the government in effect. The more they do this, the more it is at our expense. While there might be some tangible side benefits as PP mentioned, long term it makes the hill we have to climb higher in the long run to restore transferable MG production.
Even so, you deserve a fair shot at getting some help here. I've read the bill, my reading of the legalese shows us in general to have no benefit here.
Summarize the benefits for us, maybe we're missing something.
Here's a quick list of the changes in plain English:
Now, does this bill still seem like its a bad thing?
Kharn
Simple wording change (from "less than 18yo" to "has not attained 18yo")
Companies with federal security contracts (nuclear plant guards, military facility guards, etc) can buy post-86 MGs. Also, SOTs (licensed MG manufacturers) can buy post-86 MGs for "testing, research, design, or development of ammunition or a firearm", ie: no more demo letter required from the local police chief requesting the SOT buy the firearm to demonstration for possible purchase. Also, states that ATF will only use an FBI fingerprint check and a NICS check to determine if an employee of a federal contractor should be allowed to carry/use a machine gun in the performance of their job duties. MGs may be imported for the above purposes.
Eliminates the law regarding handgun waiting periods that was in-use before NICS came online.
Just like it sounds, the AG cant charge a fee for NICS. I bet Janet Reno wishes she'd thought of that.
Allows juveniles to use handguns without written permission during "ranching or farming activities, target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun." Currently, only ranching and farming activities are exempted by that clause and written permission by the parent or guardian is required before the juvenile can shoot the handgun.
Just like it sounds, the State Police wont be notified when you buy more than one handgun in a 5 day period.
The AG cant search out-of-business FFL's 4473s using electronic methods (ie: a database of scanned 4473s), they would have to go through the records by hand to find the one they want.
4473 (etc) data cant be given to anyone but law enforcement personnel with jurisdiction over the region the 4473 data came from (IIRC, Chicago Mayor Daley wanted all the multiple sales reports for IL so he could track down straw purchasers, obviously outside his jurisdiction). 4473 data cant be used in civil court unless the case is specifically about purchases (ie: appealing a wrongful denial).
The ATF's little "no more assault rifle barrels or recievers can be imported" fiat is voided. They claimed individuals were abusing the "repair and replacement" clause allowing "assault rifle" parts importation (abused by building those "repair and replacement" parts kits into functional rifles using American parts), so they tried to say no more "assault rifle" barrels or recievers could be imported.
Now, does this bill still seem like its a bad thing?
Kharn
1911 guy
Member
I don't get it.
We're supposed to be jumping up and down to support a bill that:
A) Does nothing at all for the average Joe and
B) Reinforces the "we" vs. "they" mentality on the hill by creating a class above the law that applies to the rest of us?
No thanks, I'll pass. Should the folks asked to do the job get the best tools to do it? Yes, but not by creating a caste system of gun owners.
We're supposed to be jumping up and down to support a bill that:
A) Does nothing at all for the average Joe and
B) Reinforces the "we" vs. "they" mentality on the hill by creating a class above the law that applies to the rest of us?
No thanks, I'll pass. Should the folks asked to do the job get the best tools to do it? Yes, but not by creating a caste system of gun owners.
waterhouse
Member
While I would love to get rid of the 4473s more often, it would be a huge pain to have to get rid of the bound book every time any gun that was logged into it reached the 2 year date. Don't get me wrong, I think the concept is great, but you'd have to find a better way of implementing it as far as the bound book goes.
Jim March
Member
Folks, this bill terrifies me.
When you look at the whole thing, the "arm the mercenaries" piece is WAY bigger than any other. It's also more complex and clearly what they spent the most time on. It's also written in such fashion that if you didn't know how Federal Class 3 laws work now, you wouldn't know what the issue was. Hence the left is slumbering completely unaware and they've co-opted many of us on the "right".
It reads to me as if "arm the mercs" is the core goal of the bill. And then they tacked on some "NRA candy" to rope in the most powerful lobbying force in the US to push for it.
I keep thinking back to Tiananmen Square.
Does anybody else remember that TWO Chinese army units were sent in to violently quash dissent because the first one refused to do so?
The first was a unit made up largely of urbanized, educated people who were basically being asked to pound the heads of people all too similar to themselves. They refused. The next bunch were a very rural unit who had been subject to heavy indoctrination and they did the whole "stormtrooper" number to a "T".
In America, we have restrictions on giving the Federal government ready access to armed groups able to act in that fashion, and Tiananmen Square perfectly illustrated why. Our National Guard troops could be used that way but "the powers that be" would have to risk them balking just like the first batch in Tiananmen - they would be ordered to shoot their neighbors, friends, families or at least people all too similar to themselves. (And if armed Americans balk, they might just go all the way and turn their guns/tanks/planes/etc. 180 degrees.)
This is why the Posse Comitatus law is a good idea. It's meant to prevent exactly what was done in Tiananmen - use people from one cultural subset of the nation against another.
Now, Blackhawk might not act as headbangers if called upon to do so. Cool. But in this very thread another contractor with a history of problems has been mentioned, right? And others could be created or corrupted.
Somebody wants a reliable pool of headbangers like China has, in a really sick form of "gadget envy".
I like the idea of most of the "pro-NRA elements" of this bill too. But I *hate* the possible precedent being set of "hey, we can dismantle civil rights in the US so long as we toss the NRA a bone to snack on each time".
That's insane, and it's damned well NOT why became an activist for personal defense.
If we go along with it this time it will happen again and again and again until history damns us all to hell.
When you look at the whole thing, the "arm the mercenaries" piece is WAY bigger than any other. It's also more complex and clearly what they spent the most time on. It's also written in such fashion that if you didn't know how Federal Class 3 laws work now, you wouldn't know what the issue was. Hence the left is slumbering completely unaware and they've co-opted many of us on the "right".
It reads to me as if "arm the mercs" is the core goal of the bill. And then they tacked on some "NRA candy" to rope in the most powerful lobbying force in the US to push for it.
I keep thinking back to Tiananmen Square.
Does anybody else remember that TWO Chinese army units were sent in to violently quash dissent because the first one refused to do so?
The first was a unit made up largely of urbanized, educated people who were basically being asked to pound the heads of people all too similar to themselves. They refused. The next bunch were a very rural unit who had been subject to heavy indoctrination and they did the whole "stormtrooper" number to a "T".
In America, we have restrictions on giving the Federal government ready access to armed groups able to act in that fashion, and Tiananmen Square perfectly illustrated why. Our National Guard troops could be used that way but "the powers that be" would have to risk them balking just like the first batch in Tiananmen - they would be ordered to shoot their neighbors, friends, families or at least people all too similar to themselves. (And if armed Americans balk, they might just go all the way and turn their guns/tanks/planes/etc. 180 degrees.)
This is why the Posse Comitatus law is a good idea. It's meant to prevent exactly what was done in Tiananmen - use people from one cultural subset of the nation against another.
Now, Blackhawk might not act as headbangers if called upon to do so. Cool. But in this very thread another contractor with a history of problems has been mentioned, right? And others could be created or corrupted.
Somebody wants a reliable pool of headbangers like China has, in a really sick form of "gadget envy".
I like the idea of most of the "pro-NRA elements" of this bill too. But I *hate* the possible precedent being set of "hey, we can dismantle civil rights in the US so long as we toss the NRA a bone to snack on each time".
That's insane, and it's damned well NOT why became an activist for personal defense.
If we go along with it this time it will happen again and again and again until history damns us all to hell.
rangermonroe
Member
Would this not include active duty military? Militia?
That would be sweet.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Takle a look at this language concerning 922(o):
The original language is:
The new language is:
The first issue that is going to come up under that language is whether or not the Attorney General is REQUIRED to conduct that check or whether the seller simply cannot transfer until he gets such approval; but the Attorney General may simply decline to answer.
There is a fair amount of good stuff in this bill that I would like to see happen; but right now I am not getting a warm, fuzzy feeling from it. I think the bad outweighs the good AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
We all know that very little survives the legislative process unamended.
From a practical perspective, the question is how bad does Uncle Sam want the contractor provisions? Because if Uncle Sam wants it bad enough that it has a high probability of passing, we are probably better off from a strategic point of view to start loading this bill up with goodies for all gunowners instead of trying to kill it. On the other hand, if there isn't a lot of support for this bill, I think we could do better with different language.
The original language is:
The new language is:
The first issue that is going to come up under that language is whether or not the Attorney General is REQUIRED to conduct that check or whether the seller simply cannot transfer until he gets such approval; but the Attorney General may simply decline to answer.
There is a fair amount of good stuff in this bill that I would like to see happen; but right now I am not getting a warm, fuzzy feeling from it. I think the bad outweighs the good AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
We all know that very little survives the legislative process unamended.
From a practical perspective, the question is how bad does Uncle Sam want the contractor provisions? Because if Uncle Sam wants it bad enough that it has a high probability of passing, we are probably better off from a strategic point of view to start loading this bill up with goodies for all gunowners instead of trying to kill it. On the other hand, if there isn't a lot of support for this bill, I think we could do better with different language.
Jim March
Member
BR: let me get this straight. You don't see a fundamental problem with connecting minor (at best) pro-gun goodies to pro-totalitarian horrorshows?
Seems to me this could give the left a whole new PR weapon against the NRA and allies (read: everybody on this board).
Seems to me this could give the left a whole new PR weapon against the NRA and allies (read: everybody on this board).
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
First, I'd say you are whipping out the excessive hyperbole early in the game. The bill has some disturbing aspects to be sure; but if we were really talking "pro-totalitarian horrorshows" then what you or I thought wouldn't make a difference on whether it passed. It would already be a done deal.
Second, if you'll reread my post I am simply suggesting that if this has enough support that it is likely to pass anyway, we should tack everything we can on to it.
Finally, current law already allows the Attorney General to designate people or groups as authorized to transfer NFA items interstate "consistent with public safety and necessity". So this codifies (and expands slightly) something that they already have a legal power to do. Given the history of the current administration, do you think they would hold back from that?
The contractor related provisions are because Congress recently passed an energy bill allowing nuclear protection contractors to have machineguns despite 922(0)
This would clear things up around that.
This is no 'mercenary' enabling act.
It's simply allowing people hired to protect our nuclear plants, dumps and storage facilities to carry and use something like an MP-5.
This would clear things up around that.
This is no 'mercenary' enabling act.
It's simply allowing people hired to protect our nuclear plants, dumps and storage facilities to carry and use something like an MP-5.
Jim March
Member
If it's only for the protection of fixed assets, why isn't that specified?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
To me the real problem is the language I quoted above - it applies to ALL NFA transfers, not just contractors. What happens if the Attorney General decides that it will conducts NICS checks on its own time schedule? No transfer can take place without that approval under this language. It isn't like the current NICS check where if they don't answer in three days you get to go ahead. Theoretically, the Attorney General could never answer your NICS request for a transfer.
ElTacoGrande
Member
Yeah I thought of that also. Hey I'm providing national security services right now! Not even charging for it!
Anyway, LAR-15 mentioned that this would let nuke guards trade their AR-15s for M-4s. Actually in California, I have no idea what nuke guards carry, but it sure isn't an AR-15 because they are banned by state law. They probably carry shotguns or maybe M1As or something else not really suited to the task.
But whatever! That's California's problem! Federal security contractors in Chicago should be armed only with Nerf weapons just like everyone else there.
Fact is, citizens in Chicago and New Jersey and California obey gun control laws because criminals and terrorists all obey gun control laws, too, so we all have equal firepower. Same should apply to Fed contractors!
Yes. In fact I have a story related to that. I was involved (caught up in really) an ugly strike here in California. The company needed some security help to get management and other exempt employees (including me) into the building through the picket lines, protect the buildings, and who knows what else. These security guys showed up. They all looked a bit different from the locals, and when I talked them, they talked very differently. They had all been brought in from the rural South, to California's most liberal and urban city. They were brought in specifically because they would have no connection with or sympathy for those on strike. Also they were from far away; the union couldn't possibly retaliate against them. One of them said to me, "if any of these union guys show up where I live there will be rednecks with rifles all over the place". In other words, the fact that they were from far away, both geographically and culturally, made them able to do things that locals could not.
There's an obvious connection here to gun rights and this bill. I'm sure that the California national guard would have a lot of weapon failures, broken radios and vehicle problems if they were ordered to fight against other Californians. I'm sure a private security company could find some group of citizens who would not have the same kind of problems.
Btw to be clear: I'm sure Californians would do likewise. A lot of urban liberal Californians hate gun-toting rural southerners and would have no hesitations forcibly disarming them, brutalizing them or otherwise violating their rights.
Same thing happens everywhere in the world. When De Beers wants to guard some diamond mine in Africa they bring in Israelis because they won't have much hesitation on the trigger.
Jim I agree with your interpretation of this bill. I'm concerned and unhappy about it. If this really is "will pass" legislation, then we should take that opportunity to force our reps to tack on some substantial and good things for us, like, say, throwing away 922(o) in its entirity. As you say, the NRA is the most powerful lobbying force in Congress. The NRA should not sell itself cheaply.
Sure I like the idea of having nuke security guards armed with real military weapons but it's ALWAYS the case that bills like this get passed with lofty objectives and get used in an ugly reality.
The NRA should oppose this bill unless it has some solid benefits for all of us, such as total repeal of 922(o). In fact this is a great opportunity for the NRA to come out with some goals on 922(o) and get it into play. Very often a discussion is won by framing the debate. Right now repeal of 922(o) is framed as "outside the debate". Time to reframe it!
Last edited:
NickEllis
Member
Alternative language?
Ok, Jim, Bartholemew R, the rest who know legalese...
What do y'all suggest would be changeable to the bill that would make it more appropriate? A BR has suggested, this is very early in the game. Perhaps rather than simply damning the bill, we should see what kind of language could be used to make it better. And then suggest that to your Reps/Senators like crazy, instead of just going for the all-out kill of the bill. Perhaps something really profitable could happen as a result. If this bill IS sure-pass kinda deal, you better start working on new language and suggest it to your congress-critters.
Nick
Ok, Jim, Bartholemew R, the rest who know legalese...
What do y'all suggest would be changeable to the bill that would make it more appropriate? A BR has suggested, this is very early in the game. Perhaps rather than simply damning the bill, we should see what kind of language could be used to make it better. And then suggest that to your Reps/Senators like crazy, instead of just going for the all-out kill of the bill. Perhaps something really profitable could happen as a result. If this bill IS sure-pass kinda deal, you better start working on new language and suggest it to your congress-critters.
Nick
ElTacoGrande
Member
My hunch is that this is a sure-pass bill. It's ostensibly for nuclear facility security, and it must have strong support from some politically well-connected security company. Anything to do with nuke security is sure to pass these days. Who could argue against nuclear security?
What language would I put in it? Honestly, the best starting point for any type of compromise would be asking for the best possible outcome for us. That would mean repeal of 922(o) in its entirity. That isn't such a strange request. 922(o) has only been on the books for just shy of 20 years. There have never been any problems with civilian MG ownership. The numbers have never been very big. Time to repeal it. This bill may be as good a vehicle as we ever get. And the older 922(o) is, the harder it is to repeal it. It's now or never for a legislative fix, I think
The other thing to tack on would be some of the Federal CCW reciprocity ideas. Those should have fairly good support in Congress anyway, given that aprox. 45 states now have shall-issue or close to it.
Remember, there is a strong chance that the Repubs are going to lose control of the House, the Senate and/or the Whtiehouse by 2008. In both '00 and '04, Bush won by the tiniest of margins and he isn't making himself any more popular these days. The Repubs could quickly find themselves the minority party. What I'm saying is, this may be the last time in a long time we have a shot at some tough pro-gun legislation. If the Dems take it back, or we end up in a split situation (Dem pres, Repub congress) we'll probably be stuck with whatever is the status quo, perhaps for many many years.
beerslurpy
member
LAR15, intent is one thing, what the law actually says is another. They may be doing this because of nuclear contractors, but you wouldnt know this from the way it is written. It will be applied in other ways. I guarantee.
As for how the bill should be written?
Keep the ATF reform stuff.
Remove the LEO signoff for NFA stuff.
Remove the 86 ban in its entirety for both contractors and civilians.
Easy peasy.
As for how the bill should be written?
Keep the ATF reform stuff.
Remove the LEO signoff for NFA stuff.
Remove the 86 ban in its entirety for both contractors and civilians.
Easy peasy.
This may be the time to get rid of 922r, the stupid parts count rule and the "sporting" clause. If private contracters can get machine guns, everyone else should at least be able to import any semi automatic firearm from any country not currently under economic sanctions. Just think, no more wobbly magazines in AKs, REAL Dragunuvs from Russia for hundreds less than the used ones go for now.
I whole heartedly agree with those who are against this bill as it stands now. Unless we the people get more out of this bill, I say don't pass it.
I whole heartedly agree with those who are against this bill as it stands now. Unless we the people get more out of this bill, I say don't pass it.
ElTacoGrande
Member
The real victory for us would be removal of the 86 MG ban. All the other stuff is a lot smaller in importance and difficulty. This MG ban is the kind of law that will be impossible to get rid of if it stays around for much longer. It's like the NFA. The NFA will never ever be touched. The older laws get the more set in stone they are.
Autolycus
Member
I don't like the idea of contractors being allowed to purchase MGs and DDs without going through the same restriction and crap that I have to go through. Some of the good points for gunowners are great but the fact is they are not that great. Sure the state police are no longer informed if I buy 2 guns but the ATF still is. Sure they get rid of some of the time involved with the 4473s but it still is not that big a deal as governments are very slow at record keeping and destroying records. Come on now people? This bill allows a corporate army to essentially be formed. Do we need a MS army? Or a Walmart mercenary unit?
ElTacoGrande
Member
The good stuff in this bill, as written, is so trivial as to be meaningless.
Ok, so they'll have some technical restrictions on recordkeeping. Come on, we all know enough about computers to have some idea that the NICS system keeps audit logs, whatever they say about it. Most states have their own logs, checks and registration. Credit card purchase records tell a story.
Ok, so they'll allow import of some parts. Big woop. There has been an explosion of small military-style manufacturers here who are making clones of HK 91s, AKs, whatever. Even Steyr is going to open a factory here and start selling US domestic-made AUGs. So big woop on allowing parts imports.
Unless this bill cuts a loophole in 922(o), accessible to ordinary Americans, we should not support it. Nothing less than that.
Note that that loophole could be something a bit trickier than an outright "strike the text in 922(o)". I have been trying to drum up some ideas of some more subtle ways to do that. I don't have any brilliant flashes yet, but maybe some would be:
If you get creative there are TONS of ways we could get rid of 922(o) without explicitly getting rid of it. That's what we need. I'm especially in favor of #5 above. Some really cool state could even tie this in to their CCW system. Hello Glock 18 CCW!
So this is the kind of stuff people need to think about, and that's the kind of thing we would NEED to see in this bill before we should support it.
As it is, it throws some very small and meaningless bones to the NRA and it is not what we want. Let's make it better, because this is a sure-to-pass bill.
Ok, so they'll have some technical restrictions on recordkeeping. Come on, we all know enough about computers to have some idea that the NICS system keeps audit logs, whatever they say about it. Most states have their own logs, checks and registration. Credit card purchase records tell a story.
Ok, so they'll allow import of some parts. Big woop. There has been an explosion of small military-style manufacturers here who are making clones of HK 91s, AKs, whatever. Even Steyr is going to open a factory here and start selling US domestic-made AUGs. So big woop on allowing parts imports.
Unless this bill cuts a loophole in 922(o), accessible to ordinary Americans, we should not support it. Nothing less than that.
Note that that loophole could be something a bit trickier than an outright "strike the text in 922(o)". I have been trying to drum up some ideas of some more subtle ways to do that. I don't have any brilliant flashes yet, but maybe some would be:
- What about allowing a defendant to escape guilt by paying the $200?
- What about having some kind of affirmitive defense of having attempted to pay $200?
- What about changing the penalty from felony to misdemeanor? This would be a big deal because LEOs have a lot more restrictions in how much force, etc, they can use on misdemeanor issues
- How about clearly establishing that 922(o) only applies to weapons which are movable in interstate commerce? Ie, if I'm in Montana and I own an MG which was born and raised in MT, that MG is not subject to 922(o)?
- Here's a kicker of an idea: Allow STATES to issue permits or authorizations that would allow citizens to register and pay $200, or else not need to comply with 922(o)? Cool thing about this is that it sure wouldn't look like "Congress repealed the MG ban". No, it would look like "Congress made it possible for state governments to engage private companies to secure vulnerable blah blah... in a manner that the states are free to regulate." Some states like CA would probably never ever issue these permits, and some like New Hampshire might have no problem with it. That's fine with me.
- Make some change to 922(o) to make it subject to some kind of judicial review, or make new registrations subject to some kind of process?
- Create a distinction between "registered sears" and "registered receivers" and start allowing reg of one but not the other. I don't care which, but if it's sears, they can say, "oh we have just allowed people to buy certain types of specialized gun parts." No one knows what a sear is anyway.
If you get creative there are TONS of ways we could get rid of 922(o) without explicitly getting rid of it. That's what we need. I'm especially in favor of #5 above. Some really cool state could even tie this in to their CCW system. Hello Glock 18 CCW!
So this is the kind of stuff people need to think about, and that's the kind of thing we would NEED to see in this bill before we should support it.
As it is, it throws some very small and meaningless bones to the NRA and it is not what we want. Let's make it better, because this is a sure-to-pass bill.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked