US Bill H. R. 7910

[Rocco490]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr7910rh/pdf/BILLS-117hr7910rh.pdf

Passed the House in the senate for consideration if it passes the senate it goes to the presidents desk for signing. Check out link above to read actual bill

 

[Joker12]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr7910rh/pdf/BILLS-117hr7910rh.pdf

Passed the House in the senate for consideration if it passes the senate it goes to the presidents desk for signing. Check out link above to read actual bill

Thanks for posting this as details have not been available.

 

[jpr9954]

I don't think you could get 60 votes in the Senate on this bill. It is a gun banner's wishlist.

The so-called compromise in the Senate on "gun reform" (new name for gun control) might get passed given it had 10 Dems and 10 Republicans negotiating it. However, as one friend has said, compromise supposes that both sides get a little something. What is proposed gives the gun control lobby what they wanted in part but nothing was given to the pro-gun side.

 

[TTundra]

No more magazines over 10 rounds unless you already have them. Guessing this will go thru revisions:

‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import,1
sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting inter-2
state or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition3
feeding device.4
‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession5
of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise6
lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of this7
subsection.

 

[Ridge Runner]

After reading this Bill HR 7910, this seems like this bill does nothing more than give politicians and members of their families the right to legally purchase any type of center-fire weapon, to carry any center-fire firearm with any mag capacity.

While making it illegal and preventing legal firearms owners the right to purchase, own such firearms and magazines.

Does nothing to prevent, stop street crimes ie drive by shootings, gang violence, drug crimes involving drug activities. and those laws law enforcement i.e. The FBI, BATFE, etc. rarely enforce any of the current laws to stop criminals.

So why is another law or amended law needed that only infringes on legal citizens and gun owners rights(?).

 

[Red Leg]

I don't think you could get 60 votes in the Senate on this bill. It is a gun banner's wishlist.

The so-called compromise in the Senate on "gun reform" (new name for gun control) might get passed given it had 10 Dems and 10 Republicans negotiating it. However, as one friend has said, compromise supposes that both sides get a little something. What is proposed gives the gun control lobby what they wanted in part but nothing was given to the pro-gun side.

This was passed a week ago and was dead on arrival in the senate because it goes well beyond the framework agreed to by the senate bipartisan working group. Only five republican congressmen supported it in the house and two democrats voted with the republicans (223 - 204).

That bipartisan agreement focuses on 1) Investments in mental health services, 2) Expanding FFL requirements, 3) Enhanced background checks for purchasers under 21, 4) Model red flag laws.

The senate, provided the deal holds, is now writing a bill based upon those four principals. That bill, assuming it passes, will then go to the house. Pelosi has already signaled that democrats in the house will support whatever comes out of the senate.

 

[BRICKBURN]

That bipartisan agreement focuses on 1) Investments in mental health services, 2) Expanding FFL requirements, 3) Enhanced background checks for purchasers under 21, 4) Model red flag laws.

I'd love to see the effective budget for #1 and not window dressing.

 

[Red Leg]

I'd love to see the effective budget for #1 and not window dressing.

And the whole red flag thing brings up all sorts of due process issues.

 

[Hunter4752001]

Needs an amendment to link the minimum age for firearm ownership to the minimum age for voting. If a person under 21 is too immature to own a semi-auto, then doesn't it follow that they are too immature to select the person in charge of the nuclear arsenal? Lets see the Democrats tear themselves apart on that eqivalence.

 

[Newboomer]

Needs an amendment to link the minimum age for firearm ownership to the minimum age for voting. If a person under 21 is too immature to own a semi-auto, then doesn't it follow that they are too immature to select the person in charge of the nuclear arsenal? Lets see the Democrats tear themselves apart on that eqivalence.

It will never be mentioned by them and they will hold their collective breaths that no one else says anything.

 

[Tanks]

The whole thing at the Senate is a Kabuki theatre so both sides can say they did something. I am fine with the Red flag laws as it leaves it up to the States and 19 States already passed those laws and most red States will not. It also requires a judges order not just cops making a decision on hearsay.

 

[CJW]

The whole thing at the Senate is a Kabuki theatre so both sides can say they did something. I am fine with the Red flag laws as it leaves it up to the States and 19 States already passed those laws and most red States will not. It also requires a judges order not just cops making a decision on hearsay.

I'm not sure why we should be so relaxed in that when Soros plants have made the gains that they have. All it takes is one dirty judge and your rights are gone.

 

[Tanks]

You don't need a dirty judge. Just a CA style one.

 

[sestoppelman]

The whole thing at the Senate is a Kabuki theatre so both sides can say they did something. I am fine with the Red flag laws as it leaves it up to the States and 19 States already passed those laws and most red States will not. It also requires a judges order not just cops making a decision on hearsay.

Problem with RF laws is that in some cases perhaps most, the persons property is confiscated BEFORE any kind of adjudication by a judge. Thats how it works here in WA state.
Then its up to the person in question to prove to the satisfaction of the court that they are not a threat.
The confiscation part should ONLY take place AFTER a court with the evidence from several sources including LE, mental health professional's and co-operation from the one losing their property.
Its too easy for some angry ex girlfriend, neighbor etc., to call LE and say the guy next door has guns and is a threat to the community. Just too damn easy and it has happened before.

 

[Tanks]

Well, the Senate agreement in regards to RF laws does nothing more than what is already happening in individual States except for some grant money. It is not a National RF law mandate. So, blue States will pass (and most already have) RF laws with or without the Federal encouragement.

It is really meaningless and not something to get mad about in regards to the GOP senators that have agreed to it. It does not create a Federal RF law. From a political standpoint GOP has to pass something so it does not become an election issue. The Democrats want to run on guns and Jan. 6 and not the economy for sure.

 

[Bonk]

Well, the Senate agreement in regards to RF laws does nothing more than what is already happening in individual States except for some grant money. It is not a National RF law mandate. So, blue States will pass (and most already have) RF laws with or without the Federal encouragement.

It is really meaningless and not something to get mad about in regards to the GOP senators that have agreed to it. It does not create a Federal RF law. From a political standpoint GOP has to pass something so it does not become an election issue. The Democrats want to run on guns and Jan. 6 and not the economy for sure.

Let them run on gun control. I dare them. They'll lose bigly

Even though the chances of a red flag law being passed where I live is remote I still strongly oppose them. They trash the Constitution and individual rights.

 

[Challer]

The whole thing at the Senate is a Kabuki theatre so both sides can say they did something. I am fine with the Red flag laws as it leaves it up to the States and 19 States already passed those laws and most red States will not. It also requires a judges order not just cops making a decision on hearsay.

Once enacted, red flag laws will be expanded to cover any situation they want and used as warrantless searches. Several hundred agencies already have forfeiture policy to enable them to take away property without cause or crime

 

[Tanks]

Well, all of those abuses are already here in a worse manner on the guise of anti-drug, anti-terrorist or eminent domain laws. Heck, a few years ago the SCOTUS agreed that it was fine to take someone's property and give it to another entity that would generate more tax revenue (Kelo vs City of London).

 

[rookhawk]

I cringe at this bill or whatever new version of it actually becomes law.

My kids had to attend hunter education before they were allowed to handle any type of firearm. Once they passed, they were made accountable to control the storage of our firearms and ammunition.

We enjoy looking at functional art and we have a library where our firearms (and theirs) are on display. In addition, they have firearms hanging on their walls (e.g. a deactivated parade Krag)

We then have a separate keypad accessed storage closet on a different floor of the home where we practice good ammo hygiene so that someone cannot easily connect firearms to ammunition.

What this law means is that my household cannot display their firearms, they all must be locked in a safe at all times. We do not need to secure our weapons from anyone in the household, we only take serious the practices of separating gun+ammunition from any visitor of the household. The minors are in charge of this responsibility as much as any adult on the property. It's the first thing we do when we return from a hunt: take the ammo from the truck and lock it in the storage closet.

It appears in the future we won't be allowed to display our fine arms in a secure room any longer which is preposterous.

 

[Challer]

Well, all of those abuses are already here in a worse manner on the guise of anti-drug, anti-terrorist or eminent domain laws. Heck, a few years ago the SCOTUS agreed that it was fine to take someone's property and give it to another entity that would generate more tax revenue (Kelo vs City of London).

And therefore we shouldn't accept any more of this trash