HR 127

[Mick-Boy]

Text released. It's really, really bad.



https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/text?r=19&s=1


-Licensing/Registration of all firearms.

-Searchable database of firearm owners established (and accessible to the public).

-Psych eval required to get a license (including interviewing family/acquaintances).

-Liability insurance required for the license.

-Mandatory training.

-$800 licensing fee.



Contact your Reps...

[Great-Kazoo]

From the same people who don't feel you need I.D, to vote

[def90]

Registration at the fed level is against the law. This bill will die before it evem makes it to committee.

[nighterfighter]

Registration at the fed level is against the law. This bill will die before it evem makes it to committee.

If I remember correctly, this bill aims to repeal that law.

If this passes, we are FUCKED.

I already emailed my Congressional rep, Jason Crow. So he'll throw my opinion away, I'm sure.

[FoxtArt]

That would be really awkward to vote for that thing if it passes only to find out there's only two gun owners in the entire country, but 80 million incredibly pissed off people.

[CS1983]

https://i.imgur.com/YBlnheS.jpg

[Zundfolge]

Registration at the fed level is against the law. This bill will die before it evem makes it to committee.

Not any more. They just proved they can rig the Presidential and Senate elections ... they will pack the courts, add Democrats states (DC and Puerto Rico) and continue rigging elections until they have super-majorities in the house and senate.

They no longer need the voters to maintain power, so there is nothing to stop this that isn't a violation of the TOS of this site.

[brutal]

Ms. Jackson Lee and anyone that supports this should be tried for treason and hftnud when found guilty.

[ray1970]

So much for pretending to support underprivileged and poor communities.

The well-to-do will pay for their licenses and be able to protect themselves and their property while those living paycheck to paycheck will not be able to fork over the money year after year to have the right to protect themselves.

Guess some lives really don?t matter to the Democrats.

Sounds pretty constitutional to me.

Hopefully the Supreme Court is less racist and judgmental than Biden and his administration.

[Eric P]

Any LEO enforcing this if enacted is a traitor and deserves what comes...

[Ramsker]

What a steaming, vile pile of crap.

And my opinion on Jackson-Lee's bill is pretty much the same.

[nighterfighter]

Any LEO enforcing this if enacted is a traitor and deserves what comes...

LEO's could support this bill, as they get an exemption from all of it.

Rules for thee, and all.




I REALLY hate the idea of a public registry for firearm owners, that anyone can access.

Applying for a job? Well sorry, it seems you own guns, we can't hire you.


Don't register yourself and then have to use your gun in self defense? You might have been better off letting the criminal have their way with you. (Which I think is the intention of some politicians recently anyways.....)

[Great-Kazoo]

Any LEO enforcing this if enacted is a traitor and deserves what comes...

Well, when one considers how the NG and other people were "vetted" for security in D.C. I'm sure the vetting process, ein guter Deutscher sein began, sometime ago

[nighterfighter]

Actually, in hind sight, I should tell my representative to vote yes for this bill. That way I can become a criminal and know which houses to rob for some easy to pawn guns.

[Irving]

You think it'll be easy to pawn guns?

[Grant H.]

You think it'll be easy to pawn guns?

Woah now...

No need for crushing someone's dreams... Lol...

[Sarcasm2]

[Rucker61]

Actually, in hind sight, I should tell my representative to vote yes for this bill. That way I can become a criminal and know which houses to rob for some easy to pawn guns.

I wonder if Congress will exempt themselves from the registration requirement; otherwise, the voters will know which Democratic elected officials have guns, and how many.

[nighterfighter]

I wonder if Congress will exempt themselves from the registration requirement; otherwise, the voters will know which Democratic elected officials have guns, and how many.

Do you even have to ask that?

[TEAMRICO]

That would be really awkward to vote for that thing if it passes only to find out there's only two gun owners in the entire country, but 80 million incredibly pissed off people.

This just in:
80 million pissed off people have just been readjudicated and have had their pissed off?ness transferred over the We are Ok With this column.
Brought to you buy Dominion.

[Sawin]

Stupidity has no bounds...

[eddiememphis]

Just read the bill.

Fines start at $50,000 for most violations and include mandatory prison terms starting at 10 years.
Transferring ammo or firearms is only a $5,000 fine.

.50's are banned, as are magazines over 10 rounds.

I don't see this getting out of the house as is but you can bet it won't be the final attempt.

[Great-Kazoo]

Just read the bill.

Fines start at $50,000 for most violations and include mandatory prison terms starting at 10 years.
Transferring ammo or firearms is only a $5,000 fine.

.50's are banned, as are magazines over 10 rounds.

I don't see this getting out of the house as is but you can bet it won't be the final attempt.



So the real question. Asked in a hypothetical manner, of course.

The fine for failing to register your firearms start @ $50K



AND the penalty for an unregistered, happy switched item is?

$10K and 10 years

[nighterfighter]

Just read the bill.

Fines start at $50,000 for most violations and include mandatory prison terms starting at 10 years.
Transferring ammo or firearms is only a $5,000 fine.

.50's are banned, as are magazines over 10 rounds.

I don't see this getting out of the house as is but you can bet it won't be the final attempt.



No, it won't make it out as is.

It will be negotiated down to "just" registration or "just" 10 round magazines. Then they can say "See, we compromised!"

[Planner]

Stupidity has no bounds...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210202/94d02df1a94c31d9a691885b329d4804.file
Agreed. I don?t think the bill sponsor even comprehends the magnitude of this challenge, nor the non-compliance rate it might generate. 39,395,615 BGCs last year alone. 377million in the last 23 years. 2021 is off to the races with the first 4mil + month.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Eric P]

No, it won't make it out as is.

It will be negotiated down to "just" registration or "just" 10 round magazines. Then they can say "See, we compromised!"

Must demand zero compromise... every gun owner looses on any compromise. Only acceptable compromise is to eliminate all gun laws except the 2nd. No background checks, since they don't work, nor will ever work. Eliminate the GCA and NFA.

[Rucker61]

So far there aren't any co-sponsors for any of the anti-gun bills Lee has introduced.

[Rucker61]

So the real question. Asked in a hypothetical manner, of course.

The fine for failing to register your firearms start @ $50K



AND the penalty for an unregistered, happy switched item is?

$10K and 10 years

The government wouldn't even be able to fine a felon with a gun due to Haynes v US, so at least most of her constituency would be safe.

[O2HeN2]

Haynes v US
THANK YOU!

I've been looking for that case for some time. Knew it existed, didn't know what it was called.

For those of you unfamiliar with this case, from Wikipedia:

"The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his [5th amendment] right not to incriminate himself."

The supreme court agreed, which IMHO is the correct call.

But what this means is that only lawful, upstanding citizens can be charged with non-registration.

Isn't that just loverly.

O2

[eddiememphis]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/1/30/22257506/chicago-weekend-shootings-jan-29-jan-31-homicide-gun-violence

Chicago Sun Times, February 1, 2021

"Five people were killed and at least 16 others wounded in shootings across Chicago this weekend.

The weekend was less violent than the one prior, as a winter storm dumped nearly a foot of snow by Monday. Last weekend, 31 people were shot and seven were killed between 5 p.m. Friday and 5 a.m. Monday."

Is this the gun crime the legislation is intended to curtail? Will these criminals even know there is a requirement for licensing, registration and insurance to own a firearm?

A cynic may think it's not about public safety but control of citizens.

[eddiememphis]

I forgot to add there is a requirement for the registered gun owner to obtain insurance.
No definition of the type or coverage limits- probably one of those things that needs to pass before we know the details.
However, it is another way to limit ownership since insurance companies can be coerced politically to either refuse to offer these policies or have the rate so expensive as to price out the average American.

"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 with the date the policy is issued."

[eddiememphis]

So the real question. Asked in a hypothetical manner, of course.

The fine for failing to register your firearms start @ $50K



AND the penalty for an unregistered, happy switched item is?

$10K and 10 years

No.

922(aa) says it's unlawful to possess a firearm or ammunition unless... you have a license and the gun is registered. Penalty for this is no less than $75,000 and no more than $150,000, not less than 15 years in prison and not more than 25 years, or both.

If you don't have the mandatory insurance policy, it's $50-$100k, 10-20 years, or both.

If it's is not your gun the owner needed to have informed the attorney general of the loan. It's not clear if that is the AG of the US or your state AG.

The big one is if you transfer a firearm to someone under 18 and it is used in a crime, unintentional shooting or suicide. $100-$150k, 25-40 years, or both.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Lobbyists have been busy collecting donation from local gun stores... It's going to get worse.

[brutal]

I forgot to add there is a requirement for the registered gun owner to obtain insurance.
No definition of the type or coverage limits- probably one of those things that needs to pass before we know the details.
However, it is another way to limit ownership since insurance companies can be coerced politically to either refuse to offer these policies or have the rate so expensive as to price out the average American.

"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 with the date the policy is issued."

It's a government run "insurance" policy.

This woman is absolutely insane.

[eddiememphis]

This woman is absolutely insane.

Nah. She is just a believer that government does things best.

“We need a massive takeover by the Federal Government to massively vaccinate the American people,” she said. “We need it to be done through the officers and the expertise of FEMA.”

[Rucker61]

I forgot to add there is a requirement for the registered gun owner to obtain insurance.
No definition of the type or coverage limits- probably one of those things that needs to pass before we know the details.
However, it is another way to limit ownership since insurance companies can be coerced politically to either refuse to offer these policies or have the rate so expensive as to price out the average American.

"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 with the date the policy is issued."

Liability insurance requirement

“Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts,” said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.


According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.


“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis.”


https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/04/10/287849.htm
Many home insurance companies (like Esurance) don't increase premiums for gun ownership. In fact, they may not even require homeowners to disclose whether they own a firearm or plan on owning one in the future. The only way coverage would increase is if you select the aforementioned insurance rider for your collection.

https://www.esurance.com/info/homeowners/does-owning-a-firearm-affect-homeowners-insurance

[JohnnyDrama]

It's a government run "insurance" policy.

This woman is absolutely insane.

Not really insane. Just an absolute tool.

[Great-Kazoo]

I forgot to add there is a requirement for the registered gun owner to obtain insurance.
No definition of the type or coverage limits- probably one of those things that needs to pass before we know the details.
However, it is another way to limit ownership since insurance companies can be coerced politically to either refuse to offer these policies or have the rate so expensive as to price out the average American.

"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 with the date the policy is issued."

You also forgot. Actually the democrats forgot. The same ins type companies that would insure you are.



The same one's NY , N.J and 1 or 2 other states kicked out and said they couldn't sell ins in their state. Or some other crazy democrat double speak.

[Great-Kazoo]

No.

922(aa) says it's unlawful to possess a firearm or ammunition unless... you have a license and the gun is registered. Penalty for this is no less than $75,000 and no more than $150,000, not less than 15 years in prison and not more than 25 years, or both.

If you don't have the mandatory insurance policy, it's $50-$100k, 10-20 years, or both.

If it's is not your gun the owner needed to have informed the attorney general of the loan. It's not clear if that is the AG of the US or your state AG.

The big one is if you transfer a firearm to someone under 18 and it is used in a crime, unintentional shooting or suicide. $100-$150k, 25-40 years, or both.

you completely missed why i posted that.

[DDT951]

LEO's could support this bill, as they get an exemption from all of it.

Rules for thee, and all.




I REALLY hate the idea of a public registry for firearm owners, that anyone can access.

Applying for a job? Well sorry, it seems you own guns, we can't hire you.


Don't register yourself and then have to use your gun in self defense? You might have been better off letting the criminal have their way with you. (Which I think is the intention of some politicians recently anyways.....)


Look at the bright side.

Applying for a job? Well sorry, it seems you don't own guns, we can't hire you.

Employers could use it to screen people who don't own guns?

[ray1970]

Look at the bright side.

Applying for a job? Well sorry, it seems you don't own guns, we can't hire you.

Employers could use it to screen people who don't own guns?

Let me educate you a bit. It would probably break down more like this....

Well, you seem very well qualified for the position but it appears you are a registered firearm owner.

Thanks for applying for the position but I?m afraid we aren?t willing to offer you the job.

[roberth]

Ray for the win and those of you who register won't be able to sue for discrimination.

[wctriumph]

Register??

Register what??

[ray1970]

Register??

Register what??

Probably doesn?t apply to you.

It?s for the deer and duck hunters.

[colorider]

Damn boats. We own no guns

[Zundfolge]

?Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance?that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct.

That misses the point. The REAL reason for the proposal of insurance (and the license ... and the psych eval) is to price us commoners out of our rights ... make it to where only rich leftist assholes like Steven Spielberg can keep their gun collections but you and I will be disarmed and ripe for the plunder.

[whitewalrus]

That misses the point. The REAL reason for the proposal of insurance (and the license ... and the psych eval) is to price us commoners out of our rights ... make it to where only rich leftist assholes like Steven Spielberg can keep their gun collections but you and I will be disarmed and ripe for the plunder.

Not only price out, but make the process so difficult that the average person won't bother. Look at the NFA, most won't bother and the process isn't all that bad, but at first it does seem like a lot of crap to navigate.

And there aren't many in psychology who cannot find something wrong with everyone. It is like cops with traffic violations, there's something they can get you on no matter how normal you are.

[Zundfolge]

And there aren't many in psychology who cannot find something wrong with everyone. It is like cops with traffic violations, there's something they can get you on no matter how normal you are.

If the Psych Eval doesn't get you, once you're in the system, the first time you post something even remotely spicy online (or not spicy at all) then you'll be red flagged (even if you live in a state without a red flag law).

FFS they're about to try Trump for inciting violence by saying "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capital Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

[battlemidget]

in a not-related-but-kinda comment, checkout predictit.org
I'm not sure how to explain it, but it's kinda interesting.

[D_F]

In some weird sick way, I hope this passes. I cannot fathom the compliance rate being high at all. Once that Pandora's box is open it may be interesting to see what else follows. In fact I'm somewhat tempted to start drafting letter to my representatives encouraging their support with the same argument. [pileoshit]

[DDT951]

Let me educate you a bit. It would probably break down more like this....

Well, you seem very well qualified for the position but it appears you are a registered firearm owner.

Thanks for applying for the position but I?m afraid we aren?t willing to offer you the job.

I would do it like such:


Well, you seem very well qualified for the position but it appears you are NOT a registered firearm owner.

Thanks for applying for the position but I?m afraid we aren?t willing to offer you the job