The truly horrible House gun bill

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2019
73,431
53,254
3,565
The Red flag law in this bill is little more than backdoor gun confiscation

Here Rep Lance Gooden explains why he voted no

Friends,

The school shooting in Uvalde is an unimaginable tragedy, and my heart continues to break for the families who lost a child, a mother, or a loved one. There are twenty-one families in Texas that are forever shattered, and I will do everything in my power to ensure a tragedy like this never happens again. We must secure our children’s schools, address the mental health crisis gripping our nation, and restore respect for the sanctity of human life.

However, the bills considered by the House of Representatives today would have accomplished none of those things. Instead, liberals in Congress used an unimaginable tragedy to push a series of empty and blatantly unconstitutional proposals that attack Americans’ Second Amendment rights and fail to address the root causes of gun violence. The bills passed by the House today were nothing short of a foot in the door to nationwide gun grabs, unconstitutional age restrictions, and European-style gun control. I could not and will not support that. While there is a laundry list of reasons I voted no on these bills today, I wanted to explain to you the most egregious provisions and why I voted against them.

1. Mandating Firearms be Stored and Locked at Home

The Supreme Court has already ruled Americans have a right to defend themselves in their own homes. A federal mandate on how their self-defense weapon is stored that limits their ability to protect themselves would clearly violate that right. While firearm safety in the home is vitally important, especially to parents of young children, if an intruder enters your home, the time it takes to unlock your firearm box and load your gun could be the difference between life and death. Americans have a right to determine the safest way to store their guns at home. This provision would have done nothing to prevent the shooting in Uvalde and instead only risks more lives, especially in rural communities where law enforcement response times are longer.

2. Prohibiting Third-Party Gun Purchases or Loans

Federal law already prohibits the transfer or third-party sale of a firearm to someone prohibited from possessing one. The extreme prohibition in this bill on third-party gun purchases goes much further and would severely limit an individual’s ability to purchase a firearm as a gift or loan a gun to a friend. In other words, it would criminalize purchasing a gun for a friend who is experiencing domestic violence and may need a firearm for self-defense. This would put well-intentioned Americans at risk of criminal prosecution, and even prison, for trying to protect their sister or friend in an abusive relationship or for loaning a friend a gun while hunting.

3. Confiscating Americans’ Firearms without Due Process

The bill would create new “red flag” laws that trample on Americans’ Second Amendment rights by allowing family or household members to alert law enforcement or petition a court requesting an individual’s firearm be confiscated without due process. While this may seem commonsense if an individual is a risk to their family or their household, the way the bill establishes this procedure is extreme and ripe for abuse. It would allow any individual who has cohabitated with another in the past year to file the petition, meaning a disgruntled ex-spouse or former roommate could submit endless petitions to harass an individual or deprive them of the means to defend themselves. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty, and your Constitutional rights cannot be denied without due process and equal protection under the law.

4. Raising the Age Limit on Gun Purchases to 21

The bill considered today would prohibit the sale of certain firearms to individuals under the age of 21, with very limited exceptions. If you can fight for your country or join your local police force at age 18, then the government should not prevent you from buying a firearm to protect yourself and your loved ones. More importantly, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has already ruled this type of prohibition is unconstitutional.

5. Banning “High Capacity” Firearms

Perhaps the most far-reaching provision in the bill is a limit on firearm magazine capacity of ten rounds, which would apply to an overwhelming majority of magazines sold with rifles and handguns. Most weapons today can accommodate fifteen to thirty rounds of ammunition, and studies have shown limiting access to these weapons would have no impact on reducing violent crime. This provision is nothing more than an attempt to limit the number of guns available on the market.

These provisions would only burden law-abiding Americans and restrict their right to bear arms while also failing to prevent violent crime from occurring. This is not a serious attempt to find solutions. We must work to understand and prevent what drives individuals to commit such evil acts of violence. We must strengthen our nation’s mental healthcare system. We must emphasize and work to restore the core nuclear family and traditional family values. These actions would prevent future crime, but gun control will not. In the meantime, and most importantly, we must secure our schools.

I support protecting our children and our communities, but I will not support policies that infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. That’s why I voted no on the liberal gun grab today.


Sincerely,
Image
 
Last edited:
This bill did pass in the House, correct? It'll never go anywhere in the Senate, BUT it tells us plainly what the democrats would do if they had total control over the federal gov't. The 1st thing they'd do is abolish the filibuster, and after that they'd pack the Supreme Court with enough progressive liberal justices to rubberstamp everything they want to do, including but not limited to gun registration and confiscation for pretty much any reason they can think of.
 
This bill did pass in the House, correct? It'll never go anywhere in the Senate, BUT it tells us plainly what the democrats would do if they had total control over the federal gov't. The 1st thing they'd do is abolish the filibuster, and after that they'd pack the Supreme Court with enough progressive liberal justices to rubberstamp everything they want to do, including but not limited to gun registration and confiscation for pretty much any reason they can think of.
1654807114102.png



This illustrates what the democrooks would do if they ever achieved the power they seek.

MAKE NO FUCKING DOUBT ABOUT IT.



.
 
The Dems have found a big issue to beat over the Reps with.
They will be using the gun control issue to scare women voters.
Interesting how they miraculously and with perfect timing had a bunch of mass shootings so they could pound this issue.

I'm having a hard time believing that these shooters were not groomed by the federal government.
 
The Red flag law in this bill is little more than backdoor gun confiscation

Here Rep Lance Gooden explains why he voted no

Friends,

The school shooting in Uvalde is an unimaginable tragedy, and my heart continues to break for the families who lost a child, a mother, or a loved one. There are twenty-one families in Texas that are forever shattered, and I will do everything in my power to ensure a tragedy like this never happens again. We must secure our children’s schools, address the mental health crisis gripping our nation, and restore respect for the sanctity of human life.

However, the bills considered by the House of Representatives today would have accomplished none of those things. Instead, liberals in Congress used an unimaginable tragedy to push a series of empty and blatantly unconstitutional proposals that attack Americans’ Second Amendment rights and fail to address the root causes of gun violence. The bills passed by the House today were nothing short of a foot in the door to nationwide gun grabs, unconstitutional age restrictions, and European-style gun control. I could not and will not support that. While there is a laundry list of reasons I voted no on these bills today, I wanted to explain to you the most egregious provisions and why I voted against them.

1. Mandating Firearms be Stored and Locked at Home

The Supreme Court has already ruled Americans have a right to defend themselves in their own homes. A federal mandate on how their self-defense weapon is stored that limits their ability to protect themselves would clearly violate that right. While firearm safety in the home is vitally important, especially to parents of young children, if an intruder enters your home, the time it takes to unlock your firearm box and load your gun could be the difference between life and death. Americans have a right to determine the safest way to store their guns at home. This provision would have done nothing to prevent the shooting in Uvalde and instead only risks more lives, especially in rural communities where law enforcement response times are longer.

2. Prohibiting Third-Party Gun Purchases or Loans

Federal law already prohibits the transfer or third-party sale of a firearm to someone prohibited from possessing one. The extreme prohibition in this bill on third-party gun purchases goes much further and would severely limit an individual’s ability to purchase a firearm as a gift or loan a gun to a friend. In other words, it would criminalize purchasing a gun for a friend who is experiencing domestic violence and may need a firearm for self-defense. This would put well-intentioned Americans at risk of criminal prosecution, and even prison, for trying to protect their sister or friend in an abusive relationship or for loaning a friend a gun while hunting.

3. Confiscating Americans’ Firearms without Due Process

The bill would create new “red flag” laws that trample on Americans’ Second Amendment rights by allowing family or household members to alert law enforcement or petition a court requesting an individual’s firearm be confiscated without due process. While this may seem commonsense if an individual is a risk to their family or their household, the way the bill establishes this procedure is extreme and ripe for abuse. It would allow any individual who has cohabitated with another in the past year to file the petition, meaning a disgruntled ex-spouse or former roommate could submit endless petitions to harass an individual or deprive them of the means to defend themselves. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty, and your Constitutional rights cannot be denied without due process and equal protection under the law.

4. Raising the Age Limit on Gun Purchases to 21

The bill considered today would prohibit the sale of certain firearms to individuals under the age of 21, with very limited exceptions. If you can fight for your country or join your local police force at age 18, then the government should not prevent you from buying a firearm to protect yourself and your loved ones. More importantly, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has already ruled this type of prohibition is unconstitutional.

5. Banning “High Capacity” Firearms

Perhaps the most far-reaching provision in the bill is a limit on firearm magazine capacity of ten rounds, which would apply to an overwhelming majority of magazines sold with rifles and handguns. Most weapons today can accommodate fifteen to thirty rounds of ammunition, and studies have shown limiting access to these weapons would have no impact on reducing violent crime. This provision is nothing more than an attempt to limit the number of guns available on the market.

These provisions would only burden law-abiding Americans and restrict their right to bear arms while also failing to prevent violent crime from occurring. This is not a serious attempt to find solutions. We must work to understand and prevent what drives individuals to commit such evil acts of violence. We must strengthen our nation’s mental healthcare system. We must emphasize and work to restore the core nuclear family and traditional family values. These actions would prevent future crime, but gun control will not. In the meantime, and most importantly, we must secure our schools.

I support protecting our children and our communities, but I will not support policies that infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. That’s why I voted no on the liberal gun grab today.


Sincerely,
Image
Confiscation my ass. Arizona will leave the union before we give up anything especially to the dirty branch bait sons of bitches we have in there now. They will realize real quick they put their pants on one leg at a time, They can't bull shit me with their false stats. This is what war is and work of power hungry scum. If that fuck Joe pulls his head out of whos ever ass he has it in and I can save a dime I'll buy targets for their backs. Remember Joe we all know you are not our president and it won't take to much for some patriot to delete your tyrant ass. I protect my family from fucks like you trying to strip us of our liberty teeth. NEVER WILL I BOW DOWN, DISARM OR KEEP MY EGGS IN ONE BASKET. Joe you and your keepers are the nation' s enemy Same goes to all willing to break their oath and never had any honor to begin with. Make sure you take your 'save the children' and SHOVE it up your ass you uncaring tyrant bitch.
 
Last edited:
Confiscation my ass. Arizona will leave the union before we give up anything especially to the dirty branch bait sons of bitches we have in there now. They will realize real quick they put their pants on one leg at a time, They can't bull shit me with their false stats. This is what war is and work of power hungry scum. If that fuck Joe pulls his head out of whos ever ass he has it in and I can save a dime I'll buy targets for their backs. Remember Joe we all know you are not our president and it won't take to much for some patriot to delete your tyrant ass. I protect my family from fucks like you trying to strip us of our liberty teeth. NEVER WILL I BOW DOWN, DISARM OR KEEP MY EGGS IN ONE BASKET. Joe you and your keepers are the nation' s enemy Same goes to all willing to break their oath and never had any honor to begin with And make sure you take your save the children and SHOVE it up your ass you uncaring fuck.

Don't beat around the bush, badbob. Tell us how you really feel. :eek:

Tell ya what, if the day ever comes when the democrats own all 3 branches of the federal gov't then we are well and truly fucked as a country. I already got what I need in the way of guns and ammo, and I won't be giving my property up either. How are they gonna know what I got anyway, I ain't going to tell 'em.
 
The school shooting in Uvalde is an unimaginable tragedy, and my heart continues to break for the families who lost a child, a mother, or a loved one. There are twenty-one families in Texas that are forever shattered, and I will do everything in my power to ensure a tragedy like this never happens again.
When they start off like this knowing there's nothing we can even imagine much less do that will ensure nothing like this will ever happen again you know you're in trouble.

There are things we can do to reduce school shootings in the future and that start with securing the schools and making sure that if someone attempts one there is an immediate lethal response available.

Anyone not starting off with those two isn't actually interested in doing anything to reduce much less eliminate them.
 
1. Mandating Firearms be Stored and Locked at Home

The Supreme Court has already ruled Americans have a right to defend themselves in their own homes. A federal mandate on how their self-defense weapon is stored that limits their ability to protect themselves would clearly violate that right. While firearm safety in the home is vitally important, especially to parents of young children, if an intruder enters your home, the time it takes to unlock your firearm box and load your gun could be the difference between life and death. Americans have a right to determine the safest way to store their guns at home. This provision would have done nothing to prevent the shooting in Uvalde and instead only risks more lives, especially in rural communities where law enforcement response times are longer.
A weapon is all but useless if you don't have immediate access to it in an emergency.

One thing we discuss in all of my beginner level classes is the trade off between accessibility and security. The more accessible it is, the less secure it is and vice versa.

No level of gov't can dictate to us what a reasonable level of security and accessibility is.

If you have kids in the home you have a much higher level of security needed if you don't, greater accessibility is probably more in line with your needs.

Like it or not there isn't and can't be a one size fits all solution.
 
3. Confiscating Americans’ Firearms without Due Process

The bill would create new “red flag” laws that trample on Americans’ Second Amendment rights by allowing family or household members to alert law enforcement or petition a court requesting an individual’s firearm be confiscated without due process. While this may seem commonsense if an individual is a risk to their family or their household, the way the bill establishes this procedure is extreme and ripe for abuse. It would allow any individual who has cohabitated with another in the past year to file the petition, meaning a disgruntled ex-spouse or former roommate could submit endless petitions to harass an individual or deprive them of the means to defend themselves. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty, and your Constitutional rights cannot be denied without due process and equal protection under the law.
This is both a political and constitutional non starter.
 
3. Confiscating Americans’ Firearms without Due Process

The bill would create new “red flag” laws that trample on Americans’ Second Amendment rights by allowing family or household members to alert law enforcement or petition a court requesting an individual’s firearm be confiscated without due process. While this may seem commonsense if an individual is a risk to their family or their household, the way the bill establishes this procedure is extreme and ripe for abuse. It would allow any individual who has cohabitated with another in the past year to file the petition, meaning a disgruntled ex-spouse or former roommate could submit endless petitions to harass an individual or deprive them of the means to defend themselves. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty, and your Constitutional rights cannot be denied without due process and equal protection under the law.

I think confiscation could depend on the circumstances. If the cops are called and they arrest you cuz they believe you are a danger to yourself or others then I can see confiscation as reasonable. And when you get your arraignment hearing, part of the discussion for bail would include whether or not your guns should be returned to you. The judge can decide whether or not to keep or delay your weapons, and that is reasonable due process IMHO.

If they do not arrest you and do not believe you are a danger to yourself or others then IMHO confiscation is not warranted.

Then there's the situation where they don't arrest you but believe you could be a danger to yourself or others. Which is kinda weird, but let's run with it. Maybe a family member calls the cops even though you're not doing anything wrong at least at the moment but that person is concerned. Seems to me the prudent thing to do is confiscate the guns and require a hearing within say 14 days to determine further action. No hearing would mean the end of the confiscation and you get your guns back. But look at it, you haven't actually done anything wrong that the cops can see, so do we allow confiscation or not? What if there are witnesses to your violent behavior prior to when the cops show up? Are then any complaints out on you? Is it an acceptable infringement on your 2nd Amendment rights for 14 days to avoid a possible shooting?
 
I think confiscation could depend on the circumstances. If the cops are called and they arrest you cuz they believe you are a danger to yourself or others then I can see confiscation as reasonable. And when you get your arraignment hearing, part of the discussion for bail would include whether or not your guns should be returned to you.
Due process has to come first. This is the US, not some socialist dictatorship.
 
I think confiscation could depend on the circumstances. If the cops are called and they arrest you cuz they believe you are a danger to yourself or others then I can see confiscation as reasonable. And when you get your arraignment hearing, part of the discussion for bail would include whether or not your guns should be returned to you. The judge can decide whether or not to keep or delay your weapons, and that is reasonable due process IMHO.

If they do not arrest you and do not believe you are a danger to yourself or others then IMHO confiscation is not warranted.

Then there's the situation where they don't arrest you but believe you could be a danger to yourself or others. Which is kinda weird, but let's run with it. Maybe a family member calls the cops even though you're not doing anything wrong at least at the moment but that person is concerned. Seems to me the prudent thing to do is confiscate the guns and require a hearing within say 14 days to determine further action. No hearing would mean the end of the confiscation and you get your guns back. But look at it, you haven't actually done anything wrong that the cops can see, so do we allow confiscation or not? What if there are witnesses to your violent behavior prior to when the cops show up? Are then any complaints out on you? Is it an acceptable infringement on your 2nd Amendment rights for 14 days to avoid a possible shooting?
What the lib gun grabbers are proposing is ripe for abuse

Anti gun judges can on a whim take away your guns and never give them back

A vindictive wife or girl friend can report you as a dangerous person and the burden of proof falls on the accused to convince the gun grabbing judge that you are innocent
 
Due process has to come first. This is the US, not some socialist dictatorship.
Understood. But do you think in all circumstances we should wait until people are dead to take action against a nutjob? Honest question, not trying to piss anybody off, but somebody calls the cops and the subject is arrested because the cops believe he or she is a danger to himself or someone else. You wouldn't confiscate that person's guns, even for a short time, maybe a week or 2? Otherwise the subject gets out of jail on bail the next day and still has access to his guns. You okay with that?

Ultimately it comes down to this: should we try to prevent a nutjob from having a gun? That's why we require a background check in the 1st place. Should we take steps to try to disarm such a person for a short time until due process is accomplished? I get it, innocent until proven guilty, but nobody is being convicted here. Can we not live without our guns for even a little while? I suspect that the majority of Americans would rather see a temporary confiscation until an individual is found to be a threat to himself or others or not, in a court of law. If the prosecution cannot show reasonable cause for why the individual should not get his/her guns back then those guns are returned and due process was served. Innocent until proven guilty, as it should be.
 
1. Mandating Firearms be Stored and Locked at Home
Rendering firearms USELESS for self defense. Government trying to BEAT people into giving up their 2nd amendment rights. Why not allow guns to be loaded with 6 rounds for defense, and the rest of the ammunition locked up? Because that's not their goal, their goal is to take away our 2nd amendment rights. This is a gun ban by way of rendering the gun inoperable.
 

Forum List

Back
Top