HR 127 - Fire Arms/Ammo Registeration

Growler215 · Jan 28, 2021

gwfrench said:
The $800 is for insurance, payable to the government. Every Year.

I saw the insurance requirement but I thought you had to go get that on your own (and they revoke your license if it lapses.)

And there are hoops to jump through for renewal, too.

At any rate, this bill is so "out there" that I don't believe it has any chance of being enacted, even by congress. Still, if it makes lesser infringement seem almost reasonable in comparison it will have fulfilled its purpose.

Bertfish · Jan 28, 2021

This is to claim they "did something" to a rabid base

manderson · Jan 29, 2021

Mr H said:
... and tens of billions of rounds of ammunition

... none of which was at Bass Pro today, unless you're looking for a handful of high-end shotgun food

When it comes down, we will all be willing to share.

MightyWarMonger · Jan 30, 2021

Growler215 said:
Seriously, has anyone read the text of this bill?

Requires $800 license after a psychologist has interviewed you, your spouse, your ex-spouse(s), and a couple of neighbors. Penalties for non-compliance include a minimum fine of $75,000 and a minimum prison sentence of 15 years.

I can't believe anyone is serious with this s**t. Seems more likely this is put out there to make anything else they propose seem reasonable by comparison.

yup they went for everything they could think of in it, $800 for the license, registration of all firearms you own, where they will be stored, all your weapons will be made public record (aka a shopping list for criminals and deranged ass hats), 24hrs of training, license, background check, psychological exam, psychological exam for other members of your household, your ex spouse has to be interviewed, 2 other family members need to be interviewed, a separate license for military style weapons (to include pistols), separate 24hr training for that license, you will have to have insurance (of you can find one), you would have to notify the AG if you loan a firearm, bans .50 and greater ammunition, fines in the 30k 50k 150k range, transport laws, large magazine ban(anything over 10rds), min 10 year sentences up to 20 Wow is an understatement

Minor · Jan 30, 2021

Because we actually understand history-

winch · Jan 30, 2021

Are we making similar requirements for the other Constitutional rights?
PS The NRA better show up for this one.

Ngrovcam · Jan 30, 2021

Minor said:
View attachment 305859

That picture says it all...followed closely
with a retort by some that “But, it could
never happen here.”

Fact is, yes it can - but for the Second Amendment.

Which is exactly why an initial position
from a broader community than just the firearms enthusiasts, must be “We will not comply”

Any legislative/regulatory mandate that
cannot be enforced is useless.

Then, if such draconian measures as
proposed, are enacted and attempts made
at enforcement, the powers that be must
come to understand that they have
exceeded the mandate and the COTUS.

And, there’s a point, it seems to me,
where all the legalese and precedents and arguments become nothing but stall tactics
and wasted energy.

I would guess that is the point at which one must truly pick sides.

Scary stuff when one extends out the possibilities - which are still far off enough,
it seems to me, to prevent in a reasonable, lawful and civilized way.

But, I fear the proverbial window is closing.

We must be vigilant.
Individually.
Collectively.
Cohesively.
Resolutely.
Unwaveringly.

Doctor_M · Jan 30, 2021

If they want to know what will turn me from a law abiding citizen, to an outlaw rebel scum? Well... this is it.

Chauchat · Jan 30, 2021

Rickman said:
Didn't find this posted yet. If dupe, please merge or delete.

Means nothing. Does not apply to Marylanders who are not on Meade or APG or any other federal enclave.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/text?r=17&s=1

lazarus · Jan 30, 2021

Not too worried about this one. They come up with deranged ideas all the time. Unless I’ve missed it, zero co-sponsors.

It is cute, $800 annually, plus 8hrs training a year, plus liability insurance (that doesn’t exist). On top of 24hrs of training to start with.

75k+ fines for violating almost anything and 15+ years in prison.

Oh, gotta notify the attorney general about any firearm loans before you loan anything.

You can get a an antique firearm display license. But you still have to have all the training and it has to be locked up in a safe.

I don’t think “display” means to her what it means to anyone else.

gwfrench · Jan 30, 2021

No, the $800 annually IS for insurance, directly from the AG of the US, it is not a fee for the license. You don't get the insurance from private industry.
This insurance from the AG is mandatory before you get any license.
(d) FIREARM INSURANCE
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall issue to any person who has applied for a license pursuant to subsection (c) and has paid to the Attorney General the fee specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection a policy that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person during the 1-year period that begins wth the date the policy is issued.
(2) FEE.—The fee specified in this paragraph is $800

teratos · Jan 30, 2021

gwfrench said:
No, the $800 annually IS for insurance, directly from the AG of the US, it is not a fee for the license. You don't get the insurance from private industry.
This insurance from the AG is mandatory before you get any license.
(d) FIREARM INSURANCE
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall issue to any person who has applied for a license pursuant to subsection (c) and has paid to the Attorney General the fee specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection a policy that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person during the 1-year period that begins wth the date the policy is issued.
(2) FEE.—The fee specified in this paragraph is $800

Minnesota Star & Tribune Company v Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue is a case that may be discussed.

The Framers would be troubled by such a burden placed on a good man wishing to be armed.

press1280 · Jan 31, 2021

lazarus said:
Not too worried about this one. They come up with deranged ideas all the time. Unless I’ve missed it, zero co-sponsors.

It is cute, $800 annually, plus 8hrs training a year, plus liability insurance (that doesn’t exist). On top of 24hrs of training to start with.

75k+ fines for violating almost anything and 15+ years in prison.

Oh, gotta notify the attorney general about any firearm loans before you loan anything.

You can get a an antique firearm display license. But you still have to have all the training and it has to be locked up in a safe.

I don’t think “display” means to her what it means to anyone else.

It's DOA. I don't even think it could get 50 Senate votes, let alone 60.

Muleskinner · Jan 31, 2021

press1280 said:
It's DOA. I don't even think it could get 50 Senate votes, let alone 60.

Until Schumer decides to change the rules and only requires a simple majority to pass any bill. Don't think it'll happen? Just wait till they stack the supreme Court and then can get away with anything

press1280 · Feb 1, 2021

Muleskinner said:
Until Schumer decides to change the rules and only requires a simple majority to pass any bill. Don't think it'll happen? Just wait till they stack the supreme Court and then can get away with anything

2 Dem senators have already come out saying they will not vote to abolish the filibuster. Unless there are 2 GOP Senators who will vote to abolish the filibuster against their own party then all the crazy bills being proposed are going nowhere.

LGood48 · Feb 1, 2021

The crazy lady from TX submits this bill, or one very close to it, every year. Has yet to make it out of committee!
Wouldn't be very concerned again this year.

lazarus · Feb 1, 2021

press1280 said:
2 Dem senators have already come out saying they will not vote to abolish the filibuster. Unless there are 2 GOP Senators who will vote to abolish the filibuster against their own party then all the crazy bills being proposed are going nowhere.

This. And if Schumer did try to push it, you'd likely have more than just those two voting against it. It is just that those two have said publicly and given private assurances that they will not vote to abolish it. They don't want the GOP to do the same thing if they get in to the majority again.

It could still happen. I guess in part it depends on how much a shit heel McConnell ends up being. That is why Reid got rid of the filibuster on non-SCOTUS appointments because McConnell pretty much refused to allow any of Obama's judicial appointments through. If McConnell decides to pretty much halt all legislation from the tame to the radical those couple of Dem senators opposed to it likely will change their mind.

Then McConnell turned around and removed the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments to ram them through as fast as possible without needing to compromise on who the nominees were with the Dems.

But I don't think that is going to happen in the end. I'd worry more with the midterms if a few more GOP seats flip and the dems keep the ones they have. Another 3-4 seats to the Dems and it is possible Schumer will get his caucus to do away with the legislative filibuster. If the GOP is willing to negotiate on bills and isn't holding up all the things, probably won't push a filibuster breaker.

I've got no crystal ball though.

sajidakh · Feb 1, 2021

press1280 said:
2 Dem senators have already come out saying they will not vote to abolish the filibuster. Unless there are 2 GOP Senators who will vote to abolish the filibuster against their own party then all the crazy bills being proposed are going nowhere.

Not true. It depends what the bill is on. Discretionary spending, taxes things of thst nature can pass with sinple majority and filibuster proof. Not most law bills.

Allen65 · Feb 1, 2021

lazarus said:
But I don't think that is going to happen in the end. I'd worry more with the midterms if a few more GOP seats flip and the dems keep the ones they have. Another 3-4 seats to the Dems and it is possible Schumer will get his caucus to do away with the legislative filibuster. If the GOP is willing to negotiate on bills and isn't holding up all the things, probably won't push a filibuster breaker.

It all depends on whether, as you said, McConnell picks his fights wisely. If he decides he needs to throw red meat to the base by blocking every single Dem bill, he'll probably end up losing the filibuster entirely. Political polarization sucks; we end up slamming hard right, then hard left, then back again, over and over. The only winners from that are the political con artists who profit off of conflict.

press1280 · Feb 2, 2021

sajidakh said:
Not true. It depends what the bill is on. Discretionary spending, taxes things of thst nature can pass with sinple majority and filibuster proof. Not most law bills.

Gun bills cannot go through under this scenario. Only budget reconciliation can.

HR 127 - Fire Arms/Ammo Registeration

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Throw bread on me

Ultimate Member

0351 Semper Fi

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics