National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[Diamondback]

IIRC if it hasn't made it out for POTUS signature by end of session that bill's dead and they start over next session.

Addendum to prior, Dec 2022 marked the end of that Congress. When a Congressional biennium (hence bills being labeled like "119th Congress, 2nd Session") ends, anything not signed in or overridden into law is DRT.

 

[MTpockets]

Rep. Andrew Clyde's Bill passes the House and is moving on to the Senate.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Rep. Andrew Clyde's Bill passes the House and is moving on to the Senate.View attachment 1437149

Not a Veto-Proof majority unfortunately

 

[Flopsweat]

Not a Veto-Proof majority unfortunately

Sadly, it's just theater unless we can get those numbers. They could have been blocking funding for DOJ and IRS, which they don't need the Senate for. I think it's telling where they focus their efforts. I recently heard the two parties referred to as two hogs who feed at the same trough. Seems about right.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Sadly, it's just theater unless we can get those numbers. They could have been blocking funding for DOJ and IRS, which they don't need the Senate for. I think it's telling where they focus their efforts. I recently heard the two parties referred to as two hogs who feed at the same trough. Seems about right.

Indeed. Campaign stuff to ensure they keep their seats in 2024

 

[Diamondback]

Politics wonks call it Failure Theater, it was GOP Business As Usual for decades before the coming of OrangeManBad.

 

[MTpockets]

I would offer the opinion that the man, behind the H.J. Res. 44, is in it for more than votes.

Clyde Armory

[email protected]

clydearmory.com

But Clyde is no ordinary policymaker. Along with his seat in Congress, he has maintained his role as the owner of Clyde Armory, a business that not only includes two Georgia gun stores, but also a sprawling government contracting business that sells weapons and ammunition to the federal government and state governments across the country. ~ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (July 2022)

OPINION: A pro-gun congressman, gun store owner, and federal weapon supplier all in one

When Andrew Clyde ran for his 9th District seat in Congress in 2020, he won fans and critics alike with his campaign yards signs, which featured his name alongside an image of an AR-15 rifle.

www.ajc.com

A Republican member of Congress owns a gun store and makes millions selling military-style rifles, body armor, ammunition, and other weapon accessories

Rep. Andrew Clyde, perhaps best known for equating the January 6 rioters to "tourists," also owns a firearm and law enforcement supply store.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Flopsweat]

I would offer the opinion that the man, behind the H.J. Res. 44, is in it for more than votes.

Clyde Armory

[email protected]

clydearmory.com

But Clyde is no ordinary policymaker. Along with his seat in Congress, he has maintained his role as the owner of Clyde Armory, a business that not only includes two Georgia gun stores, but also a sprawling government contracting business that sells weapons and ammunition to the federal government and state governments across the country. ~ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (July 2022)

OPINION: A pro-gun congressman, gun store owner, and federal weapon supplier all in one

When Andrew Clyde ran for his 9th District seat in Congress in 2020, he won fans and critics alike with his campaign yards signs, which featured his name alongside an image of an AR-15 rifle.

www.ajc.com

A Republican member of Congress owns a gun store and makes millions selling military-style rifles, body armor, ammunition, and other weapon accessories

Rep. Andrew Clyde, perhaps best known for equating the January 6 rioters to "tourists," also owns a firearm and law enforcement supply store.

www.businessinsider.com

I hate to say this about an ally, but he seems to have a conflict of interest going on here. If we're going to bash Pelosi for insider trading, I think we can ask this guy to pick a lane.

 

[nammac]

I hate to say this about an ally, but he seems to have a conflict of interest going on here. If we're going to bash Pelosi for insider trading, I think we can ask this guy to pick a lane.

What's good for the goose and her spouse, is good for the gander…

 

[GWS]

I hate to say this about an ally, but he seems to have a conflict of interest going on here. If we're going to bash Pelosi for insider trading, I think we can ask this guy to pick a lane.

I don't see it that way. What Constitutionally guaranteed, enumerated right was the Hag defending when she was engaged in insider trading?. That Clyde might get increased business from this bill being enacted does not diminish the rightness of the bill itself. Would you have him recuse himself from even voting on it because he sells guns? Should he be excluded from all legislation dealing with the Second Amendment?

 

[Flopsweat]

I don't see it that way. What Constitutionally guaranteed, enumerated right was the Hag defending when she was engaged in insider trading?. That Clyde might get increased business from this bill being enacted does not diminish the rightness of the bill itself. Would you have him recuse himself from even voting on it because he sells guns? Should he be excluded from all legislation dealing with the Second Amendment?

Or he could sell the business.

 

[Yarome]

I don't see it that way. What Constitutionally guaranteed, enumerated right was the Hag defending when she was engaged in insider trading?. That Clyde might get increased business from this bill being enacted does not diminish the rightness of the bill itself. Would you have him recuse himself from even voting on it because he sells guns? Should he be excluded from all legislation dealing with the Second Amendment?

I agree.

I understand the point others are making, but there is a big difference with pelosi... who was making policy and breaking the law solely for personal gain vs. representing public interest... of which they may also benefit.

Breaking it down to basics... are we going to ridicule a politician for defending 1A rights because he happens to exercise that right too... and would also benefit from preserving his own right to free speech without censorship?

Food for thought.

 

[GWS]

Or he could sell the business.

Why on earth should he do that?
His main income is government sales. They don't need to eff around with braces. And he won't benefit alone if this were to pass. EVERY gun shop in America will benefit. This is nothing like the Hag's turning Utah's coal fields into a national monument so her hubby could make a killing in Chinese coal. This is a man defending his business (AND our rights) from unconstitutional overreach by an out of control bureaucracy.

 

[Flopsweat]

Why on earth should he do that?
His main income is government sales. They don't need to eff around with braces. And he won't benefit alone if this were to pass. EVERY gun shop in America will benefit. This is nothing like the Hag's turning Utah's coal fields into a national monument so her hubby could make a killing in Chinese coal. This is a man defending his business (AND our rights) from unconstitutional overreach by an out of control bureaucracy.

And therein lies the conflict. If he were selling to non-government entities, your argument might be stronger, but I definitely see conflict when someone in government, who sells to government is involved in laws related to the product that he is selling to the government. Too many instances of "government" there.

 

[Reperio]

And therein lies the conflict. If he were selling to non-government entities, your argument might be stronger, but I definitely see conflict when someone in government, who sells to government is involved in laws related to the product that he is selling to the government. Too many instances of "government" there.

You conveniently breezed right past his point about braces. Being in the same industry is a far reach considering he likely doesn't have much to do with braces. You are making more of a semantics argument than a logical one.

 

[Flopsweat]

You conveniently breezed right past his point about braces. Being in the same industry is a far reach considering he likely doesn't have much to do with braces. You are making more of a semantics argument than a logical one.

It's not semantics and I didn't breeze past anything. He sells firearms products to the government. It's a conflict. Tone it down a little would you?

 

[Yarome]

And therein lies the conflict. If he were selling to non-government entities, your argument might be stronger, but I definitely see conflict when someone in government, who sells to government is involved in laws related to the product that he is selling to the government. Too many instances of "government" there.

I think the pertinent fact that @GWS was making (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the pistol brace rule... in and of itself... has very little impact on his gooberment contracts since the US military doesn't use or purchase pistol braces. Hence, only a marginal claim to policy making for personal gain.

I do agree it's a bit of political theater, but important, nonetheless. If it passes the house and senate it puts brandon in the position of defying the "will of the people" and circumventing congress through bureaucratic law making... of which he is expressly forbidden from doing. It's a very bad look and will undoubtedly impact public support for him... as well as the demobrats as a whole.

 

[Flopsweat]

I think the pertinent fact that @GWS was making (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the pistol brace rule... in and of itself... has very little impact on his gooberment contracts since the US military doesn't use or purchase pistol braces. Hence, only a marginal claim to policy making for personal gain.

I do agree it's a bit of political theater, but important, nonetheless. If it passes the house and senate it puts brandon in the position of defying the "will of the people" and circumventing congress through bureaucratic law making... of which he is expressly forbidden from doing. It's a very bad look and will undoubtedly impact public support for him... as well as the demobrats as a whole.

You've certainly put it in a more readable and reasonable light, thanks.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Could be simple. May not actually be simple. Disable/shut down all the electronic voting machines. Force people to do paper ballots in person; no mail-in shenanigans

 

[GWS]

And therein lies the conflict. If he were selling to non-government entities, your argument might be stronger, but I definitely see conflict when someone in government, who sells to government is involved in laws related to the product that he is selling to the government. Too many instances of "government" there.

HE ISN'T SELLING BRACES TO THE GOVERNMENT!!!
The bill is solely about braces.
The government doesn't want or need pistol braces. They can have all the SBRs they want.