Assault weapons ban passed in House of Representatives

[Grunt67]

Unfortunately, I lost all my weapons in a boat accident in the North Atlantic under heavy seas.

[i1afli]

Since possession will be illegal unless the firearm is grandfathered, you’ll need a way to prove that the firearm you’re in possession of is grandfathered. And how will you do that?    I guarantee that you’ll be required to register or somehow obtain a permit for your grandfathered firearms…it’s the only way to implement it. 

[Links2k]

8 hours ago, FUJIMO said:

Absolutely ! And it was at that point I knew there would be a day where "we" would become felons with the stroke of a pen. Seems it's growing ever closer. I'm still confident @Links2kis right on this one

Hell, this move even surprised me. I thought if they didn’t enact gun control after Sandy Hook it would never be enacted.  To borrow from one of our other members …

Watching Links 

 

 

[Snaveba]

13 minutes ago, i1afli said:

Since possession will be illegal unless the firearm is grandfathered, you’ll need a way to prove that the firearm you’re in possession of is grandfathered. And how will you do that?    I guarantee that you’ll be required to register or somehow obtain a permit for your grandfathered firearms…it’s the only way to implement it. 

(b) Identification Markings For Semiautomatic Assault Weapons.—Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the weapon, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.”.

(c) Identification Markings For Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices.—Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: “A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 shall be identified by a serial number and the date on which the device was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the device, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.”.

[Snaveba]

The thing is, after the ban (if it were to go into effect) only the miitary and law enforcement and a select few wil be able to own a banned gun with the manufacture date included.  I assume (possibly incorrectly) that gun manufacturers keep a record of the serial number ranges of the weapons they produce.  As such, there would be a record in some place as to when a grandfathered assault weapon was produced.  As to 80% lowers, I am suprised they did not include a ban of all non-serialized assault weapons.

[Chucktshoes]

I doubt this will get through the Senate. But if it does, #### is about to get real damn spicy.
 

Why?

 

Because f*ck ‘em. I don’t have a boat and I didn’t lose sh!t

[Links2k]

3 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

I doubt this will get through the Senate. But if it does, #### is about to get real damn spicy.
 

Why?

 

Because f*ck ‘em. I don’t have a boat and I didn’t lose sh!t

I’m with you. I have never lost a gun, and I won’t start now.  
 

The house and senate Democrats and Republicans are a bunch of children doing tit for tat.  Their actions have nothing to do with serving the people. We are a country run by the elite and lobbyists for the one percent regardless of party. 

[krunchnik]

I wonder who would apply for the job of Firearms Collections Expert-and how long a lifespan of said employee would be?

They sure couldn't go to 110 million peoples homes to collect-

[Photoguy67]

1 hour ago, krunchnik said:

I wonder who would apply for the job of Firearms Collections Expert-and how long a lifespan of said employee would be?

They sure couldn't go to 110 million peoples homes to collect-

They will never go door to door. They will do it the same way as they did machine guns, ban or regulate them and then if and when you are found with them, prison time!

 

[Chucktshoes]

42 minutes ago, Photoguy67 said:

They will never go door to door. They will do it the same way as they did machine guns, ban or regulate them and then if and when you are found with them, prison time!

 

Only if those plates are LVL IV. 

[Grayfox54]

It'll die in the Senate. 

I keep telling y'all this is all for show. They know it'll never pass. This is just so that they can cry, whine,  wring their hands and claim "We tried!" 

[No_0ne]

14 hours ago, tercel89 said:

I dont keep up with and understand the goverment politics that much but let me ask you this : Is this thing likely to get busted down when it goes to be "approved" by the final entity ?  I ask because things like this have rose up before in the past and got shot down really quick by the higher-ups. 

 

45 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

It'll die in the Senate. 

I keep telling y'all this is all for show. They know it'll never pass. This is just so that they can cry, whine,  wring their hands and claim "We tried!" 

Exactly.  It's a dog and pony show for the upcoming elections, in which all those who oppose this bill will be portrayed as enablers of the child-killing mass murderers.  This will play well in reliably blue districts and among the donors to the sponsors, those who would vote against the representatives supporting this would do so anyway.  It has zero chance of mustering 60 votes in the Senate, and everyone who voted for it knows that already ...

 

[1gewehr]

IT is most likely going to fail in the Senate.  But, never underestimate the ability of the Republicans to do something stupid.  And never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to threaten wheedle, cajole, and blackmail to get their way.  If that weren't the case, there would not have been ANY bills passed since Biden took office.

If this bill passes, I predict massive non-compliance.  But then that's the goal.  If they can threaten us with jail, they think it will make us more pliable.

 

[deerslayer]

Would it die in the Senate?  It's basically 50-50 with Kamala as the tiebreaker.  The Republicans have Collins and Murkowski and the Democrats have Manchin and Sinema and nobody every really knows what these four will do.  Would the Senate vote need 51 or 60 votes to pass?

[krunchnik]

33 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Would it die in the Senate?  It's basically 50-50 with Kamala as the tiebreaker.  The Republicans have Collins and Murkowski and the Democrats have Manchin and Sinema and nobody every really knows what these four will do.  Would the Senate vote need 51 or 60 votes to pass?

60 votes

[eRay]

3 hours ago, krunchnik said:

60 votes

Unless Manchin and Sinema go along with the left and abolish the fillibuster. Remember Manchin just flip flopped on one major issue. Nothing is certain with this congress.

[Jeb48]

Seems like there should be a basic test of all candidates for both houses on what the constitution means and what their role is in government, if they get a low grade they can't run. If they break the rules after election automatic removal. If they really want to remove all the guns from the country they better work on repealing the Bill of Rights. Wonder how that would go over. Of course it would still take the military to enforce.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, I do keep a pocket version in the drawer by my chair it was a gift from our county clerk of the county I moved from in NY. He supplied our pro gun group cases of them to hand out. When we went to Albany we went door to door in the house and senate office building handing them out.

[Garufa]

50 minutes ago, Jeb48 said:

Seems like there should be a basic test of all candidates for both houses on what the constitution means and what their role is in government, if they get a low grade they can't run. If they break the rules after election automatic removal.

That wouldn’t be constitutional.  

[Omega]

10 minutes ago, Garufa said:

That wouldn’t be constitutional.  

Neither is gun control.

[btq96r]

I admit I was wrong on the chances the prior gun bill would pass...but that one was little and less to worry about.  This one is essentially the wet dream for an anti-gunner.  I really can't see it passing the 60 vote threshold.  If somehow it doesn't get subject to cloture, it could pass if Democrats really wanted to have a win on this.  This close to a mid-term election they're on the defensive, but have some windows with recent court actions...it could really hurt.  I think they want the issue to campaign on more than the win here (for now).

 

On 7/30/2022 at 11:53 AM, Snaveba said:

Interestingly, there is not a sunset clause in this bill. Also, they added a provision that if any portion of the bill is declared unconstitutional, that does not affect the remaining portions of the bill.

The no sunset was a lesson from the 1994 bill.  The severability part is standard legislative fare.  Requires congressional actions to die by a few blows.  Basically trying to avoid a thermal exhaust port scenario.

[Snaveba]

Got to hate the venerability of your thermal exhaust port. Even if it is ray-shielded. 

[Daniel]

On 7/31/2022 at 6:01 PM, Jeb48 said:

Seems like there should be a basic test of all candidates for both houses on what the constitution means and what their role is in government, if they get a low grade they can't run. If they break the rules after election automatic removal.

Kind of like settled supreme court cases?

[Omega]

5 hours ago, Daniel said:

Kind of like settled supreme court cases?

Absolutely, every single one that voted for anti gun cases should be ousted.  I'm sure you meant R v W, but they did good reversing that one, by the Constitution.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Omega
Speeling

[Father Goose]

I need to ready through the bill closer. For those who have, is there a sunset clause?

[Father Goose]

BTW, I love the end: 

---
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby."
---

Well, this whole thing is unconstitutional...