Assault Weapons Ban Vote on House Floor

[Jay Walk]

Two republicans voted for it

Or it would NOT have passed.

Nice.

 

[BAJ475]

Or it would NOT have passed.

Nice.

Which makes it even more aggravating. One of those POS will not be returning but the other from PA should be subject to a vigorous write-in campaign to get him out of the House.

 

[Member 3687]

Two republicans voted for it

you are correct
My post was on 1300 that brought 1808 to the floor for a vote, not on the bill itself

 

[gmerkt]

I went to the congressional web site, looking for details re. provisions of the bill. Correct me if I'm wrong, it looks like a reprise of the 1994 ban. Except for a longer list of models, it looks about the same in that it allows possession, transfer and sale for all such that were possessed prior to enactment of the law. Basically, no new stuff but existing is okay. Am I right?

I didn't see M1A's on the list, and only one model of Ruger Mini-14. Unless I missed them. The lists are very long with pistols which as I recall weren't included in the 1994 law.

Which means the bill is less restrictive that some states which have such bans. Like Calif. and has been proposed in WA.

 

[Yarome]

I went to the congressional web site, looking for details re. provisions of the bill. Correct me if I'm wrong, it looks like a reprise of the 1994 ban. Except for a longer list of models, it looks about the same in that it allows possession, transfer and sale for all such that were possessed prior to enactment of the law. Basically, no new stuff but existing is okay. Am I right?

I didn't see M1A's on the list, and only one model of Ruger Mini-14. Unless I missed them. The lists are very long with pistols which as I recall weren't included in the 1994 law.

Which means the bill is less restrictive that some states which have such bans. Like Calif. and has been proposed in WA.

What's troubling to me is the exemption inclusions. So.... a new model comes out that isn't in the exemption list... does that means it is banned like it is in CA?

Just scanning and I didn't see it in there after it was split from the other elements that where removed, but at one point there was also a section that limited transfer of a grandfathered firearm through inheritance. Basically... when you die, your firearm must be surrendered or destroyed.

Honestly though. They probably don't care what was or what wasn't in the final draft. Knowing that it's just symbolic and dead anyway.... who cares?

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I went to the congressional web site, looking for details re. provisions of the bill. Correct me if I'm wrong, it looks like a reprise of the 1994 ban. Except for a longer list of models, it looks about the same in that it allows possession, transfer and sale for all such that were possessed prior to enactment of the law. Basically, no new stuff but existing is okay. Am I right?

I didn't see M1A's on the list, and only one model of Ruger Mini-14. Unless I missed them. The lists are very long with pistols which as I recall weren't included in the 1994 law.

Which means the bill is less restrictive that some states which have such bans. Like Calif. and has been proposed in WA.

Yep, as predicted, June 29, 2020:

I say first look to the past:
#1 duplicate of 1994 regs
#2 anything they think was used in mass shootings

then look to what other countries have done. Hopefully they aren't successful but if they are they will try to duplicate:
#3 canada. That goofy list they had/still have? included mortars, million dollar high tech anti aircraft missiles, and other crazy stuff that already no civilian could get their hands on in the USA or Canada.

Imo they will start with those three things (#3 who knows if they could actually get that) and then:
#4 anything else they think they can get away with. Who knows what that will be. If it's a revolver, lever gun, bolt action hunting gun with limited mag, or hunting/limited mag shotgun it's probably safe. Anything else is potentially at risk.

And Nov. 9, 2020

Impossible to predict of course but I think we can use the past as a guide for things they might go after in the future.
1) 1994 banned items, including "assault rifles" (definition is likely to change from 1994 definitions) and high capacity mags
2) then look to what was done recently in Canada where they made a huge list of weapons, including crazy stuff like mortars and multi-million dollar smart missiles
3) then look to items specifically mentioned by Biden and his anti-gun partners in crime
4) then look to things used in mass shootings that are not captured in 1-3

Again, no one has an accurate crystal ball for this, but the above seems like a logical way to think about possibilities to me (I may have missed some). Also some antis specifically single out "ghost guns" as being ultra-evil or whatever.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I went to the congressional web site, looking for details re. provisions of the bill. Correct me if I'm wrong, it looks like a reprise of the 1994 ban. Except for a longer list of models, it looks about the same in that it allows possession, transfer and sale for all such that were possessed prior to enactment of the law. Basically, no new stuff but existing is okay. Am I right?

I didn't see M1A's on the list, and only one model of Ruger Mini-14. Unless I missed them. The lists are very long with pistols which as I recall weren't included in the 1994 law.

Which means the bill is less restrictive that some states which have such bans. Like Calif. and has been proposed in WA.

They try and make it sound palpable to the layman, but the reality is quite different! They have it set up pretty much like what Cali has done, build a verboten list, but allow grandfathering,............for now! Like Cali, once they have kicked the door off it's hinges, then they roll out stage two, which demands registration, and ultimately, bans everything!
They don't give a rats arse about the 2nd and what SCOTUS rules, they want to force it, they want you to have to spend your fortunes to fight them, knowing you can't win everything, so they keep something intact! In the mean time, we are made to suffer under what ever they pass, unless it gets challenged and a stay put in place until it can go before the SCOTUS or the Red Wave repeals it!

 

[BAJ475]

They try and make it sound palpable to the layman, but the reality is quite different! They have it set up pretty much like what Cali has done, build a verboten list, but allow grandfathering,............for now! Like Cali, once they have kicked the door off it's hinges, then they roll out stage two, which demands registration, and ultimately, bans everything!
They don't give a rats arse about the 2nd and what SCOTUS rules, they want to force it, they want you to have to spend your fortunes to fight them, knowing you can't win everything, so they keep something intact! In the mean time, we are made to suffer under what ever they pass, unless it gets challenged and a stay put in place until it can go before the SCOTUS or the Red Wave repeals it!

Don't be discouraged. They are getting they arses kicked. They should hope and pray to lose in SCOTUS because if they don't the next battle will be in the streets where they will be facing several million armed with the very weapons they are trying to ban and their claim that ARs are weapons of war will become truth!

 

[Yarome]

They should hope and pray to lose in SCOTUS because if they don't the next battle will be in the streets where they will be facing several million armed with the very weapons they are trying to ban and their claim that ARs are weapons of war will become truth!

Quite true. As one Rep was saying in testimony... to the effect of, "you are setting the scene for shootouts. Americans killing Americans and the blood will be on your hands!"

 

[Old Dog]

Basically... when you die, your firearm must be surrendered or destroyed.

This is what I got out of it (after scrolling through eleventy-hundred pages of banned or exempted firearms).

Basically -- legally acquired property -- lost. We know this is pure and utter BS -- the government rendering personal property acquired legally at time of purchase, ownership was legal, but once I'm gone -- my heirs cannot even gain financial recompense from this property?

One of the truly sickening things about this bill, how it was written, how it was discussed in committee and on the floor, is just how stupid our elected representatives are proving themselves to be (not that we didn't have a clue previously). There was some major crap spouted during the debate, and the very scary thing is, little of it was effectively refuted.

We are lost. Even if the Senate comes through and quashes this nonsense (until the next legislative session).

As I noted in another thread, the movie Idiocracy was more than a critically panned, poorly acted and could-have been written better attempt at political satire -- it was a freakin' prophecy. We're already there.

 

[BAJ475]

Quite true. As one Rep was saying in testimony... to the effect of, "you are setting the scene for shootouts. Americans killing Americans and the blood will be on your hands!"

I have to disagree on one minor point. It will be Americans killing Marxist!

 

[Alexx1401]

Don't be discouraged. They are getting they arses kicked. They should hope and pray to lose in SCOTUS because if they don't the next battle will be in the streets where they will be facing several million armed with the very weapons they are trying to ban and their claim that ARs are weapons of war will become truth!

Sadly if voters do not wake up and stop this, or the courts do not save us, there will be no battles in the street, never going to happen. It makes a nice fantasy for some but just never going to happen. An amazing number seem to have totally forgotten what they were able to get away with claiming 2 weeks to slow the spread. Turned into years and no one lifted a finger to stop them. If they ban some gun they are never going to go door to door. Why would they bother? Most will just give them up with some grumbling. Those who keep one they know they can't have are going to do what with it? Can't carry it, can't take it to the range, and many gun owners will be all too glad to turn them in if they find out they have it. If they use it in a defensive shoot they will be charged. They will never need to go door to door.

 

[BAJ475]

This is what I got out of it (after scrolling through eleventy-hundred pages of banned or exempted firearms).

Basically -- legally acquired property -- lost. We know this is pure and utter BS -- the government rendering personal property acquired legally at time of purchase, ownership was legal, but once I'm gone -- my heirs cannot even gain financial recompense from this property?

One of the truly sickening things about this bill, how it was written, how it was discussed in committee and on the floor, is just how stupid our elected representatives are proving themselves to be (not that we didn't have a clue previously). There was some major crap spouted during the debate, and the very scary thing is, little of it was effectively refuted.

We are lost. Even if the Senate comes through and quashes this nonsense (until the next legislative session).

As I noted in another thread, the movie Idiocracy was more than a critically panned, poorly acted and could-have been written better attempt at political satire -- it was a freakin' prophecy. We're already there.

We are not lost until we run out of ammo and my two progressive presses stop turning out more!

 

[Yarome]

Sadly if voters do not wake up and stop this, or the courts do not save us, there will be no battles in the street, never going to happen. It makes a nice fantasy for some but just never going to happen. An amazing number seem to have totally forgotten what they were able to get away with claiming 2 weeks to slow the spread. Turned into years and no one lifted a finger to stop them. If they ban some gun they are never going to go door to door. Why would they bother? Most will just give them up with some grumbling. Those who keep one they know they can't have are going to do what with it? Can't carry it, can't take it to the range, and many gun owners will be all too glad to turn them in if they find out they have it. If they use it in a defensive shoot they will be charged. They will never need to go door to door.

I think they are mostly referring to confiscations if the democrats get their way and move to eventually ban possession. Without a doubt their ultimate goal and an AWB is only step one. They have already proven their willingness to send out ATF knocking on random doors over lawful purchases. It's not at all inconceivable they wouldn't also start knocking on doors for seizures, too.

For me, I have no doubt a large number would peacefully hand over their firearms, but even less doubt that there would be those that would absolutely resist. You can't suddenly make millions of law abiding citizens into criminals and not have some eggs broken in the process.

 

[Alexx1401]

I think they are mostly referring to confiscations if the democrats get their way and move to eventually ban possession. Without a doubt their ultimate goal and an AWB is only step one. They have already proven their willingness to send out ATF knocking on random doors over lawful purchases. It's not at all inconceivable they wouldn't also start knocking on doors for seizures, too.

For me, I have no doubt a large number would peacefully hand over their firearms, but even less doubt that there would be those that would absolutely resist. You can't suddenly make millions of law abiding citizens into criminals and not have some eggs broken in the process.

Eventually if they get what they want there will be a few, very few, someone showing up at the door. Most of those will be someone who kept something they knew they could not have, and could not help showing it to others. There will never be mass gangs of Feds going door to door, they will never have to. If they wanted to do that why are places like Chitown shooting galleries almost every night? They know where a lot of those guns are and they do not want to go after them. If the voters sit back until there are bans the vast majority will simply give up the guns banned. The few who do not? Now and then they will make an example out of one. If one of these kooks actually shoots a Cop? The media will go wall to wall with it and more people will inform on anyone who has the banned guns. People in the US have just had it too good for too long. Few will fight, and if they choose to will just lose fast and badly but, they will not need to go door to door.

 

[BAJ475]

Sadly if voters do not wake up and stop this, or the courts do not save us, there will be no battles in the street, never going to happen. It makes a nice fantasy for some but just never going to happen. An amazing number seem to have totally forgotten what they were able to get away with claiming 2 weeks to slow the spread. Turned into years and no one lifted a finger to stop them. If they ban some gun they are never going to go door to door. Why would they bother? Most will just give them up with some grumbling. Those who keep one they know they can't have are going to do what with it? Can't carry it, can't take it to the range, and many gun owners will be all too glad to turn them in if they find out they have it. If they use it in a defensive shoot they will be charged. They will never need to go door to door.

No disagreement that the voters need to wake up. While I expect the courts to stop much of this crap, that does not mean that I will simply throw in the towel if they do not. While I do not expect battles in the streets, the primary reason is that I do not see that the libtard/Marxist are willing to push things that far, but I could be wrong. At the time it was claimed that two weeks could slow the spread, there was little evidence to dispute the claim and two weeks was a minimal disruption. Of course, we were ignoring the fact that it was widely known that government lied more often than it told the truth.

 

[Yarome]

The few who do not? Now and then they will make an example out of one. If one of these kooks actually shoots a Cop? Few will fight, and if they choose to will just lose fast and badly but, they will not need to go door to door.

Except, it's things like that that can galvanize a population into action. Ie., Like minded people clustering together that can erupt and spread.

In a small way, look at what happened when the government tried to enforce water rights and cattle seizure. Not only did those directly affected take up arms to resist, a large number travelled to join and support them.

Considering that an outright ban would affect MILLIONS (vs. just a private land owner or a single rancher) I don't believe it's at all inconceivable that the reaction would be proportionately larger than previous examples of those willing to resist governement overreach.

Instead of one isolated incident and location it could easily bleed over into multiple areas and conclaves of like minded people not so easily overcome without significant force... which could cause a cycle of more standing to resist rather than crumple.

Personally, I doubt it would come to that. The government will just continue as they have. Take a bit away from us, back off and let us get used to the new norm, then go in for another bite. Rinse and repeat until the ultimate goal is reached and we're all sitting around saying, "WTF happened!!??"

I'm not counting out the possibility though that some might wake up, realize what's going on and stand firm... "NO more!!"

 

[Alexx1401]

Except, it's things like that that can galvanize a population into action. Ie., Like minded people clustering together that can erupt and spread.

I used to believe that too. The great lock down hoax left me feeling like that will never again happen. I am still in shock at what they were able to get away with and NOTHING in the way of push back. After watching that I no longer believe there is people here who will ever fight. They will lay down and take what they are given as long as it comes with a promise to be taken care of.

 

[wired]

I went to the congressional web site, looking for details re. provisions of the bill. Correct me if I'm wrong, it looks like a reprise of the 1994 ban. Except for a longer list of models, it looks about the same in that it allows possession, transfer and sale for all such that were possessed prior to enactment of the law. Basically, no new stuff but existing is okay. Am I right?

I didn't see M1A's on the list, and only one model of Ruger Mini-14. Unless I missed them. The lists are very long with pistols which as I recall weren't included in the 1994 law.

Which means the bill is less restrictive that some states which have such bans. Like Calif. and has been proposed in WA.

First off they refer to is a semiautomatic weapons ban not an assault rifle ban. They ban person to person private transfers , new manufacturer, high cap mags.

 

[Diamondback]

And if you voted for ANY D Congressvermin, YOU helped make this possible. The five D Nays were ONLY because Pelosi gave them passes since she had the votes and needed them to win their tough reelection fights more.