The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Ulmus on January 29, 2009, 07:03:23 PM
-
Ok. I gave this idea to one of the NRA representatives at the SHOT Show and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I am assuming that the NRA has at least one Senator as a close ally who could do this.
I feel the "Stimulus Package" will pass in one form or another, so why not add this in as a rider?
HB 1, Addendum 1750/550
1. There shall be no limiting or banning any firearms chambered for the accepted legal caliber ranges. (.17 to .50 BMG.) Regardless of firing mechanism, operation, or speed.
2. There shall be no limiting, or banning any firearm due to stock configuration or ammunition loading application.
3. There shall be no limiting or banning of any firearm or ammunition magazine (Someone please put in a better term for ammo holding than Magazine there) containing 5 to 50 rounds. (If belt fed firearms are legal, please add those in.)
4. There shall be no added impact, environmental fees or "sin" taxes added to firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition, or reloading devices and accessories.
5. All existing CCW permits shall not be revoked.
6. There shal not be any federal taxes or fees added to future ccw permits.
7. There shal not be any added federal fees or taxes added to the shipping and producing of anything firearm related.
8. There shall be no banning of any common ammunition or component now in production based of chemical or alloy configuration. (Lead round ok)
9. There shal be no added federal fees to firing ranges based on enviromental impact or "contamination".
10. There shall be no new noise ordinaces imposed upon new or existing firing ranges.
I'm sure I missed a few ideas. Feel free to add them.
But with Obama really pushing this stimulus package, lets have someone add this and see how far he's really willing to go to get it passed.
What do you think?
-
How about complete reciprocal recognition of CCW permits in all 50 states? Just like a driver's license. That might force the hand of the few holdout states!
-
No additional taxes or fees associated with manufacturing, transportation or sale of ammunition or components.
Care full, we are giving the anti constitutional scum ideas.
-
Dear Leader would veto it just because of that.
-
It is very possible that he would VETO it, but then it would be a public announcement of his anti-gun bias. I don't think he wants that yet.
As for giving anyone ideas, I'm not that smart a person. If I thought of it, an anti-gun person would've long before. I just want to stop anything before it starts.
-
Do the Feds have a similar law to our fine State does stating that amendments must have a tie to the Bill. We lost our first concealed carry because it was attached to a DNR Bill. I never understood how they got the Courts to go along with it since DNR is responsible for firearms safety training, but the got it done. The next year it got passed as a stand alone.
If there is a similar thing on the Federal level the President could sign it, and the Courts would throw it out the next month.
-
I did a slight re-write. Hope this is okay.
1. There shall be no limiting or banning of any firearms
2. There shall be no limiting or banning of ammunition or components
There, how's that for much simpler.
Oh! WAIT! We have that already. It was called the 2nd amendment. "WAS" being an operative word.
-
I did a slight re-write. Hope this is okay.
1. There shall be no limiting or banning of any firearms
2. There shall be no limiting or banning of ammunition or components
There, how's that for much simpler.
Oh! WAIT! We have that already. It was called the 2nd amendment. "WAS" being an operative word.
I add to that no CCW period.
-
Do the Feds have a similar law to our fine State does stating that amendments must have a tie to the Bill. We lost our first concealed carry because it was attached to a DNR Bill. I never understood how they got the Courts to go along with it since DNR is responsible for firearms safety training, but the got it done. The next year it got passed as a stand alone.
If there is a similar thing on the Federal level the President could sign it, and the Courts would throw it out the next month.
Not at the federal level, That's one of the ways they get "crap" past us, things they don't want on their voting record, they add it as a "rider" to a popular bill. The public hears about the "Good bill" for example "The workable peace on earth bill" but never hear a word about the "money in Sen. Klepto's pocket amendment" Then if the Pres veto's it he's an SOB warmonger, you never hear that he was trying to keep Sen. Klepto from robbing us.
I think this is a great idea, and I think B Ho would have to think REAL hard about vetoing his own stimulus plan. It could fly.
We have to go on the offensive and this is as good a way as any.
I add to that no CCW period.
BAD IDEA ! (bad wording) no RESTRICTIONS on ccw by LAWFUL citizens. Your wording would have killed all CCW.
-
Cool setup, but I don't think any size mag should be banned, whats the difference between a 30 rd and a 20 rd mag. Two seconds for reload.
Also, I'd I'm think super long term here, three hundred years from now who's to say we'll be using fire arms? Some thing more advanced or different might be the norm. I think the reason the fathers left this amendment vague was to protect us from this event.
In my personal view I think the civilian population should be allowed to own weapons that are at least on par with that of the highest grade law enforcement. As the fathers sad, its to protect us from an overbearing government, and foreign invasion.
-
Cool setup, but I don't think any size mag should be banned, whats the difference between a 30 rd and a 20 rd mag. Two seconds for reload.
Also, I'd I'm think super long term here, three hundred years from now who's to say we'll be using fire arms? Some thing more advanced or different might be the norm. I think the reason the fathers left this amendment vague was to protect us from this event.
In my personal view I think the civilian population should be allowed to own weapons that are at least on par with that of the highest grade law enforcement. As the fathers sad, its to protect us from an overbearing government, and foreign invasion.
I agree entirely with one catch. In the absence of bitch slapping the Gov., what are people going to do with mortars and artillery. There's no where around here to shoot ONE thousand yards, never mind the 6,000 + for that stuff, so it would work out that the Gov would retain a monopoly on heavier weapons just due to lack of interest. There would be maybe 3 millionaires in the country who would shoot at the Salt Flats once a year or something and that would be it.
Not saying you are wrong, just saying it would only be exercised up to a point.
-
How about if we just use this one:
"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
No infringement at all!
-
To many lawyers weaseling it, We need to back it up with some specific stuff that they can not weasel word around.
-
One revision, then.
1. There shall be no limiting or banning of any firearms
2. There shall be no limiting or banning of ammunition or components
3. There shalll be no restrictions on the manner of carrying firearms
-
The best way to protect gun rights is thru education. Most people that "hate" guns have no exp with them or thier exp is with them is from a "victim" stand point. Legal gun owners are our own worst enemys. One idiot playing rambo will counter thousands of safe gun owners.
-
The best way to protect gun rights is thru education. Most people politicians that "hate" guns have no exp with them or thier exp is with them is from a "victim" stand point. Legal gun owners are our own worst enemys. One idiot playing rambo will counter thousands of safe gun owners.
Fixed it for ya ;)
-
The best way to protect gun rights is thru education. Most people that "hate" guns have no exp with them or thier exp is with them is from a "victim" stand point. Legal gun owners are our own worst enemys. One idiot playing rambo will counter thousands of safe gun owners.
TAB I would completely agree with you if the emotion could be removed from the issue. The problem becomes that the Brady Bunch and their unindicted co-conspirators in the gummint are not interested in having this issue clouded with facts.
-
TAB I would completely agree with you if the emotion could be removed from the issue. The problem becomes that the Brady Bunch and their unindicted co-conspirators in the gummint are not interested in having this issue clouded with facts.
I hate to break it too you, but both sides of gun rights do that.
Both sides play to fears and emotions.
-
TAB is correct in the long term, but we need to stop the attack on us now. We are currently in the same position as the Jews when Hitler came to power, we are the scape goat for the actions of the criminals the dims lack guts to go after, they don't want to offend the people who WILL vote for the givers of welfare.
Here's what I sent to my States delegation.
Since the firearms industry nation wide is one of the most stable currently I hope you will support the addition of the following riders to the "stimulus "package being pushed through the legislative process.
1. There shall be no limiting or banning of any firearms
2. There shall be no limiting or banning of ammunition or components
3. There shall be no restrictions on the manner of carrying firearms
This is a 1 BILLION dollar per year industry that with small exceptions like our own Thompson Center Arms, needs no bail out and contributes thousands of jobs to the nations economy.
Thank you.
Thomas C. Bogan
Laconia NH
Don't get on the cattle car with out a fight !
-
I agree entirely with one catch. In the absence of bitch slapping the Gov., what are people going to do with mortars and artillery. There's no where around here to shoot ONE thousand yards, never mind the 6,000 + for that stuff, so it would work out that the Gov would retain a monopoly on heavier weapons just due to lack of interest. There would be maybe 3 millionaires in the country who would shoot at the Salt Flats once a year or something and that would be it.
Not saying you are wrong, just saying it would only be exercised up to a point.
If nothing else, to be stockpiled solely for the purpose of maintaining the well armed militia.
-
We are currently in the same position as the Jews when Hitler came to power
Speaking of Hitler:
‘‘The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.’’
-- Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938