Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Thoughts regarding the two above referenced House Bills making it harder to buy and sell guns and potential ultimately leading to Gun Registry in the future.
Appears Bills currently propose longer waiting times, no private sales and Universal Background checks.
Sad fact is that one party is now in full control of Congress and actively going after our Second Amendment.
Would this factor into your respective dissolving of your collections now or wait it out?
Would this make you more apprehensive in adding to your collection(s)?
What, me worry? As many who collect only antiques will say, or at least think. (Until the “antiques loophole” is closed!)
One of the bills addresses antique firearms. You will need a license to display a antique firearm in your house. Each gun has to verified as antique. One other item says you will have to provide where you store your guns and that list will be available to the public.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/text
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
I do not plan to participate either.
Time to write a couple checks to NRA and Second Amendment Foundation and contact both Senators and House Representative.
127 bans a lot of items-assault weapons, .50 caliber and over and magazines over 10 rounds. Huge fines as well.
Colsuper said
I do not plan to participate either.Time to write a couple checks to NRA and Second Amendment Foundation and contact both Senators and House Representative.
Yes, but that’s a little like closing the barn door after the horses ran off. NRA is now bankrupt, & as a political force, effectively DEAD! Fat-cat collectors spending millions on guns couldn’t be bothered, or see beyond the ends of their own noses. Check out the response when I posted this: https://winchestercollector.org/forum/general-discussions-questions/nra-declares-bankruptcy/ A collective yawn.
But if these laws are passed, we WILL all “participate,” like it or not.
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’d like to think Ms. Jackson could teach Don Quixote a thing or two about tilting at windmills. The NRA is in the process of or has set up shop in my home state of Texas. The NY AG is an evil wench and a servant of our enemies. We are many and we are better funded. We knew this was coming, Clarence. We didn’t fend it off. We won’t win this battle here. Please don’t bring politics to a collector forum.
Mike
Online
I read HR127, I’m not a lawyer. What does it say? If passed as written, do I as a gun owner need a License, do all guns have to be registered, do I have to pay a fee, is the magazine tube on a Henry, 66, 73, 76, make it a problem, is a 50-95 76 a problem?
These are questions that I have and I’m sure other Forum readers have. Any help appreciated. T/R
TXGunNut said
I’d like to think Ms. Jackson could teach Don Quixote a thing or two about tilting at windmills. The NRA is in the process of or has set up shop in my home state of Texas. The NY AG is an evil wench and a servant of our enemies. We are many and we are better funded. We knew this was coming, Clarence. We didn’t fend it off. We won’t win this battle here. Please don’t bring politics to a collector forum.
Mike
Thank you, Mike.
TXGunNut said
Please don’t bring politics to a collector forum.
Did I start this thread? Kindly explain to me why it’s improper to observe that lack of support from gun owners in general led to NRA insolvency. Shame on you, .25-35, for pulling your head out of the sand–I doubt you’ll make that mistake again!
Just a simple question, but why are political discussions not allowed? I mean, certain individuals are more anti 2A than others, they tend to be of a certain political affiliation, and they deserve to be called out on that.
Another forum deletes posts to the point of censorship. Not sure why that is the case.
While I am at it, I’m not quite sure why guns are even a political issue at all. Come to think of it, there are several other subjects that should be not addressed politically, and they are.
In fact, I scratch my head and wonder why having a D vs an R after ones name makes one more for or against firearms. It seems that few issues in life are that black and white.
As stated, this post is not generated to address political issues. Just 2 questions:
1. Why is the ownership of a firearm even a political issue to begin with? (Plenty of other fish to fry).
2. If others way more powerful than you and I will ever be choose to make it a political issue, why is it not a fair topic for a firearms forum, as “they”, and not I, choose to make it a political issue.
I went to Giant this morning and purchased 25 gallons of fuel, 17 in the tank, the rest in containers for the lawn mower this summer. No questions asked. I did not have to undergo a background check, my intentions for that 8 extra gallons were not questioned.
That’s because there’s some common sense here. The same as should be with firearms. Common sense, use safely, etc. Politics don’t need to tell me that, just like politics did not restrict my purchase of petroleum this morning. I am entrusted to use this to power gasoline engines and not set property and/or individuals on fire.
SJL’s bills aren’t likely to even make it out of the house, let alone the senate. Unless of course the filibuster is abolished. All bets are off then. The two current bills that have passed the house deal with “background checks” and eliminating the “Gunshow and internet loopholes” and will end face to face sales with out Government approval (background checks again). NONE of these things will lesson gun crime.
I’m not sure what this gun show “loophole” is, as does it even exist?
You go to a gun show and usually can purchase a pre 1899 firearm, cash and carry. That’s because it’s an antique and not a firearm, whether at a gun show or not.
If post 1898 and a handgun, whether you buy it from a friend at the gun show, or anyone else, you still have to undergo a background check. If post 1898 and a long arm, dealers still require a background check.
So what “loophole”. Maybe just being able to purchase a post 1898 long arm from a private collector???
A fraction of sales, these firearms aren’t being purchased by criminals to use maliciously, and you can always just purchase collector to collector outside of the gun show venue.
Brooksy said
SJL’s bills aren’t likely to even make it out of the house, let alone the senate. Unless of course the filibuster is abolished.
They’ve already passed the House.
mrcvs said
You go to a gun show and usually can purchase a pre 1899 firearm, cash and carry. That’s because it’s an antique and not a firearm, whether at a gun show or not.
You think that “loophole” can’t be closed? Might be a good thing if it was–to wake up the “what, me worry?” types.
Gents-
I am not a lawyer, nor do I want to pretend to be one. I am posting to clarify exactly WHICH two pieces of gun control legislation passed the House this week. There seems to be some confusion on that point in this thread. I am not personally endorsing either bill, nor any of the myriad other pieces of proposed gun control legislation before Congress.
The first was HR8 sponsored by Rep Mike Thompson D-CA with 210 co-sponsors:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8/text?r=1876&s=7
This is the bill that would require “universal” background checks for firearms transactions between unrelated individuals. There is an exemption for family members, inheritance, etc., but it basically requires all other transactions to be handled by an FFL licensee.
The second bill passed was HR1446 sponsored by Rep Jim Clyburn D-SC with 165 co-sponsors:
This is the bill that would extend the time BATFE has to complete a NICS check from 3 to 10 business days, before an automatic “proceed” is granted.
The bill that’s causing all the uproar is HR127 sponsored by Rep Sheila Jackson Lee D-TX with ZERO co-sponsors to date. This is the bill that contains so many Draconian and blatantly Unconstitutional provisions that it’s not worth repeating. If interested, go read and enjoy!!!
Just trying to clarify…
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said
Just trying to clarify…
Lou
Appreciate the clarification. But “our” President’s announced agenda is not much less draconian than that of Mike’s fellow-Texan: https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
Since few here, I suspect, will invest the time in reading the entire program, here’s one item which should get the attention of even the “what, me worry?” antique collectors:
“End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.”
Lou,
Good catch, I clicked on the “all actions” and could follow where its at now.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
“Prohibit all on-line firearms sales”… what does this mean? No more gunbroker? But in the gunbroker scenaro, it is the FFL transfer dealer that receives the firearm, and then background checks the buyer in his shop – just like he would if the buyer was purchasing a firearm from his inventory in his shop. I’m not understanding what they are getting at here.
As far as some of the other items, some of that is already in place in parts of the country. I know there is California as well as other locations where ammunition cannot be shipped to the buyer. In fact, in California, don’t you have to go through a background check process when you purchase ammunition?
1 Guest(s)
