A thought on a way to protect our rights.

[Ulmus]

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?

[Rob10ring]

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!

[Dharmaeye]

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.

[ericire12]

Dear Leader would veto it just because of that.

[Ulmus]

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.

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

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.

[alfsauve]

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.

[runstowin]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Texas_Bryan]

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.