Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
I'm sure that's an unintended consequence... SJL does not have the brains to come up with something like that on her ownThe Annoyed Man wrote:I know that is crazy talk, but this is one of the unintended consequences of the way that her bill is worded.
Nothing is out of the relm of possibility where SJL is concerned. If there was ever an argument for congressional terms limits, she's it.I know that is crazy talk...
Fixed it for yaTexasCajun wrote:Nothing is out of the relm of possibility where SJL is concerned. If there was ever an argument for psychiatric testing prior to being deemed fit to serve in congress, she's it.I know that is crazy talk...
I agree. On the surface, the bill makes no distinction between children abiding in a household and children visiting/ breaking-in, etc. But according to the wording, if you kept those same weapons unloaded it would be OK; just lock up the ammunition!77346 wrote:I'm sure that's an unintended consequence... SJL does not have the brains to come up with something like that on her ownThe Annoyed Man wrote:I know that is crazy talk, but this is one of the unintended consequences of the way that her bill is worded.
I saw that, but I don't "know" of any child that has entered my house that is going to use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury. Since it is an "and" situation I don't have any problems.The Annoyed Man wrote:Am I the only one who reads that red part as meaning that "theoretically, if there were a child in my house (even though there isn't), he could access the loaded handgun and shotgun I keep by the bed (if he snuck into my house), and therefore I am in violation of the law? IF there were a child in my house, those two guns would be unsecured and accessible to him.....assuming I did not put them away for his benefit. And so since it is theoretically possible that my guns are accessible to a child (even though there is no child in my house), and since her bill does not state that the child must be in the house for this to apply, then I am theoretically in violation.Prohibits keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it, and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.
I know that is crazy talk, but this is one of the unintended consequences of the way that her bill is worded.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to apologize up front here. I know she's mostly a nut job, but I'm not really seeing anything that horrible in here except the age stuff. Isn't some or most of it already illegal? I'm all eyes, please point out the really bad parts.Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) raise the age of handgun eligibility to 21 (currently, 18); and (2) prohibit persons under age 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with exceptions.
Increases penalties for: (1) a second or subsequent violation by a juvenile of Brady Act provisions or for a first violation committed after an adjudication of delinquency or after a state or federal conviction for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a serious violent felony; and (2) transferring a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person who is under age 21, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that such person intended to use it in the commission of a crime of violence.
Prohibits any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer from transferring a firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer) unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. Authorizes the Attorney General to suspend or revoke any firearms license, or to subject the licensee to a civil penalty of up to $10,000, if the licensee has knowingly violated this prohibition.
Prohibits keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it, and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.
Requires the parent or legal guardian of a child to ensure that a child attending a gun show is accompanied by an adult.
Authorizes the Attorney General to provide grants to enable local law enforcement agencies to develop and sponsor gun safety classes for parents and children.
Expresses the sense of Congress that each school district should provide or participate in a firearms safety program for students.
Could it be interpreted to mean that anyone with children can't have weapons in the house? Because in all honesty, if my kids were just a few years older, and they wanted to open a safe and load a gun, they could. I intend to teach them how.Prohibits keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it, and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.
For the record, I oppose this bill, that being said. Here is the actual text of the relevant section:Birdie wrote:This is the part that concerns me:
Could it be interpreted to mean that anyone with children can't have weapons in the house? Because in all honesty, if my kids were just a few years older, and they wanted to open a safe and load a gun, they could. I intend to teach them how.Prohibits keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it, and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.
Aside from the fact that, as you said, the age stuff is bad, the bill is horribly written, using terms that are defined nowhere in the present code without bothering to even include the definitions. Examples of undefined terms are "semi-automatic assault weapon" and "large capacity ammunition feeding device."C-dub wrote:I'm afraid I'm going to have to apologize up front here. I know she's mostly a nut job, but I'm not really seeing anything that horrible in here except the age stuff. Isn't some or most of it already illegal? I'm all eyes, please point out the really bad parts.
Okay. I only saw the parts that have been posted here and not the whole thing.warhorse10_9 wrote:Aside from the fact that, as you said, the age stuff is bad, the bill is horribly written, using terms that are defined nowhere in the present code without bothering to even include the definitions. Examples of undefined terms are "semi-automatic assault weapon" and "large capacity ammunition feeding device."C-dub wrote:I'm afraid I'm going to have to apologize up front here. I know she's mostly a nut job, but I'm not really seeing anything that horrible in here except the age stuff. Isn't some or most of it already illegal? I'm all eyes, please point out the really bad parts.
The firearms education could be used to preach the fact that "guns are evil, go tell an adult if you see one. Don't touch they will make you want to kill"
