TexasCHLforum.com

tomtexan wrote:

RPB wrote:

tomtexan wrote:If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

but the transfer of those "grandfathered" weapons will be illegal; ie your kids can't inherit them, they'll need to "turn them in" when you are gone. (They won't be paid for them.)

So, private property is "taken" without compensation.

IF it passes, and IF that is the case, I suppose it won't matter to me much when I am dead and gone because I won't know any difference. Although it angers me currently to know that it is a remote possibility. However, I remain very optimistic that it will not pass anyway.

I understand, couple weeks ago would agree 100% but then, not that many weeks ago I was pretty sure any "generic Republican" could beat Obama, but a week before the election, I ordered some stuff that costs twice as much now ... I currently have no need to buy anything. Being prepared even if doubting something will occur, is what I try to do in many aspects of life, I probably have more Band-Aids/wire/spare parts for stuff than I'll ever use..

oldtexan wrote:

JALLEN wrote: ........Feinstein, who was the first to discover the shootings, .....

We are to a large extend the products of our individual experiences. That being the case, it's easy to see why she is so set on pushing the legislation. I certainly don't agree with her, but I can understand why she looks at this issue the way she does.

Yeah, she wouldn't want anyone else to get her position the same way she suddenly jumped up the ladder a while back.

When she is willing to give up her armed security, she can talk about the our guns.

rp_photo wrote:When she is willing to give up her armed security, she can talk about the our guns.

IIRC, she got a license to carry

Nice to see Kay Hutchinson is in the solid corner to help us keep our 2a rights if a ban ever came...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 ... gut-check/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another senator rated "A" by the NRA, Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said that while she doesn't object to having armed policemen in schools, she agreed with Warner that "we ought to be looking at where the real danger is, like those large clips - I think that does need to be looked at.

"We do have a ban on assault weapons, as was stated earlier," Hutchison said. "But it's the semi-automatic, and those large magazines, that can be fired off very quickly. You do have to pull the trigger each time, but it's very quick."

Oh. Dang. Well she's gone soon anyway, I am pretty sure Cruz will stay frosty on the issue.

I'm actually somewhat nervous. I'm seeing a lot of people i'd have considered frosty to waver on TV. It is my hope that the NRA, GOA, and others are already working hard to remind people (especially Democrats) what happened to them after the 1994 AWB.

RPB wrote:

tomtexan wrote:If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

but the transfer of those "grandfathered" weapons will be illegal; ie your kids can't inherit them, they'll need to "turn them in" when you are gone. (They won't be paid for them.)

So, private property is "taken" without compensation.

Unless they also establish some form of registration, who would ever know that the guns were transferred? Unless, of course, the recipients were not old enough to possess the guns when the ban takes effect.

Here's an update from Sen Feinstein's site, apparently posted on Dec 27.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ ... lt-weapons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's a great deal more detail now on her proposal than there was before. It would require grandfathered semi-auto firearms to be registered with the ATF under the provisions of the National Firearms Act. In effect it would treat semi-automatic versions of a weapon as severely as the full auto versions. In one respect it would more severely restrict semi-auto weapons than full-auto versions of the same firearm: full auto versions can be passed on to heirs or otherwise legally transferred, and semi-auto versions could not. It would reduce the "two-feature " test of the old ban to only one feature necessary to ban a firearm. According to the NRA-ILA site (I did not see a specific reference to them on Feinstein's site), it would specifically ban the M1 Carbine, Ruger Mini-14 and all versions of the Soviet-designed SKS, which were not banned under the '94-'04 Federal ban. The ban on detachable magazines capable of holding over 10 rds would, according to NRA-ILA, require the owner to prove he possessed that magazine before the ban took effect, whereas the previous ban required the government to prove that the magazine was not grandfathered. There was no mention of a sunset provision for this proposed ban.

This is more extensive than the '94-'04 ban, and seems less likely to make it through the legislative processes than a simple re-introduction of the previous ban, which itself probably would have been difficult to turn into law. Having said that, i sent NRA-ILA a donation today.

There is hope. This new proposal will thrill the hard core gun banners on the far left of the Democratic Party(maybe that's its purpose), who frequently complain that their party doesn't do enough on the issue, but I'm guessing it won't be popular, especially in its proposed form, with Dem Senators from purple states(Manchin, Tester, Donnelly, Casey, Baucus, Warner, etc). My guess is that even Harry Reid isn't happy about this bill(Nevada is a purple state). I'm not sure any of the GOP Senators would support it, except possibly Collins. To break a GOP filibuster(can you imagine Senators Paul, Cruz, Johnson, Rubio, Scott, or Lee not filibustering this?), Dems would need all their caucus members plus about three GOP defectors to vote for cloture, and thus bring it to a vote on the Senate floor. That's a tall order.

It's also difficult for me to envision a scenario where any recognizable version of this proposal could even come to the floor in the House, given present realities of how GOP Representatives get re-elected, which is by protecting their right flanks against primary challengers.

oldtexan wrote:It's also difficult for me to envision a scenario where any recognizable version of this proposal could even come to the floor in the House, given present realities of how GOP Representatives get re-elected, which is by protecting their right flanks against primary challengers.

Well, there's a house bill coming:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... 76838.html

I wonder what the U.S. Olympic Team Small Bore squad will be using if the ban passes. I believe their .22 cal. rifles have pistol grips, and would be considered as "assault rifles" in Sen. Feinstein's proposed act.

77346 wrote:

oldtexan wrote:It's also difficult for me to envision a scenario where any recognizable version of this proposal could even come to the floor in the House, given present realities of how GOP Representatives get re-elected, which is by protecting their right flanks against primary challengers.

Well, there's a house bill coming:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... 76838.html

huffingtonpost.com wrote:Still, backers are hopeful, noting that a ban on high-capacity magazines -- which have been involved in many of the recent high-profile instances of mass gun violence -- would be a smaller concession for gun-rights advocates than a broader assault weapons ban.

I'm sure they will try to pass this under the guise that it will affect less gun owners, whereas the real effect on handgun magazine ownership would be pervasive. We cannot stand for either.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... n/TVq4dXPg



I could ALMOST sign this petition!

The Annoyed Man wrote:https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... n/TVq4dXPg



I could ALMOST sign this petition!

Wow, I'm surprised it has 13,001 votes already (created 2 days ago).

77346 wrote:

oldtexan wrote:It's also difficult for me to envision a scenario where any recognizable version of this proposal could even come to the floor in the House, given present realities of how GOP Representatives get re-elected, which is by protecting their right flanks against primary challengers.

Well, there's a house bill coming:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/2 ... 76838.html

Any House member can write and file any bill they please. Then the bill sits in limbo until the Speaker of the House decides what to do with the bill. Most bills simply die at the end of the session with no action taken. The bills which the speaker favors are the only ones which ultimately make it to the floor for debate and a vote. The speaker can also assign a bill to a committee for the purpose of claiming to give the bill consideration when he just intends to have it die in committee, or he can have it amended in committee. If he wants the amended bill to come to the floor, then he can make that happen, as well. The Speaker appoints all committee chairmen and all or most committee members so he has tremendous influence in every committee. All committees in the House have chairmen from the Speaker's party and members from the Speaker's party make up a majority of members, and thus votes, in each committee. The Speaker of the House is tremendously powerful, but only as long as he has the confidence of his caucus (all the Republican members).

Speaker Boehner is already having some problems controlling the most conservative members of the Republican caucus in the House, witness the recent Fiscal Cliff vote. If he caved on a new ban, Boehner would almost certainly lose his Speakership before the bill could come to the floor, probably to the more conservative Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and would likely lose his seat in the House in the 2014 GOP primary to a more conservative challenger. His political career would simply be finished.

oldtexan wrote:If he caved on a new ban, Boehner would almost certainly lose his Speakership before the bill could come to the floor, probably to the more conservative Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and would likely lose his seat in the House in the 2014 GOP primary to a more conservative challenger. His political career would simply be finished.

That is exactly what I said to his staffer who answered the phone.

oldtexan wrote:To break a GOP filibuster(can you imagine Senators Paul, Cruz, Johnson, Rubio, Scott, or Lee not filibustering this?), Dems would need all their caucus members plus about three GOP defectors to vote for cloture, and thus bring it to a vote on the Senate floor. That's a tall order.

Not if you change the rules....

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2747 ... ear-option" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leading proponent of filibuster reform, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has the 51 votes he needs to change Senate rules with the "nuclear option."

The maneuver would be controversial, however, and could heighten partisan tensions at the start of the 113th Congress in January. Republicans say using 51 votes to change Senate procedures — and to prevent the minority party in the Senate from blocking a majority-vote — amounts to breaking the rules to change them.

“The crucial thing for all of you to know is Harry Reid’s got 51 votes to do the Constitutional option at the beginning of the Congress,” Udall said. “My sense is if he can’t get agreement on the other side, then he’s going to go forward.”

Changing rules with a simple majority vote is considered so controversial it is sometimes called the nuclear option. Democrats backing the maneuver have described it as the “Constitutional option.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;