8 ms·

H.R.127 – Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

23 points by thedanbob 6y ago

EE84M3i 6y ago
This seems to go above and beyond restrictions in even many blue states and seems incredibly unlikely to pass.
- bushbaba 6y ago
  But dems will be able to use this bill to go back to their district and say. We attempted and the republicans blocked it.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
  This is the biyearly “see we tried” Gun Act.
liaukovv 6y ago
I will never understand how "shall not be infringed" can be interpreted as "free to infringe in every way"
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Pretty much everyone agrees that some level of infringement is appropriate; even the NRA's not out there campaigning for the right to bear nuclear arms. Same with free speech. Libel is speech; it's never been protected speech, despite the general wording of the First Amendment.
  - liaukovv 6y ago
    I don't think there are commercial manufacturers of nuclear weapons. On the other hand manpads and anti-tank missiles seem like a good fit considering the intention.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Pretty much everyone agrees that some level of infringement is appropriate; even the NRA's not out there campaigning for the right to bear nuclear arms. > Same with free speech. Libel is speech; it's never been protected speech, despite the general wording of the First Amendment. Though it's worth noting the allowed infringements on free speech by the government are incredibly narrow.
  - tzs 6y ago
    The NRA used to be in favor of gun control. It was the NRA in the 1920s that proposed that states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, longer prison sentences if a gun is used in a crime, a waiting period on gun purchases, and the gun sale records be made available to the police. The NRA proposal was adopted by several states. The NRA helped draft the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, which were the first federal gun control laws. This sort of thing continue through the 1960s with the NRA supporting California's Mulford Act of 1967 which banned carrying loaded weapons in public. They also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968, which added minimum age requirements, serial number requirements, banned guns for the mentally ill and for drug addicts, restricted shipping across state lines except to collectors and federally licensed dealers, and required showing ID to purchase some types of ammo. (It originally was going to also mandate a national registry of all guns and licensing for all guns, which the NRA objected to and were removed from the bill). It wasn't until the early 1970s that the flipped from supporting quite a bit of gun control to opposing nearly all gun control.
  - stmfreak 6y ago
    No, pretty much everyone doesn’t agree that some level of infringement is okay. The nuclear arms strawman is a long way from the myriad of restrictions, registrations and required permission for personal weapons. Remember that during the revolution, citizens owned personal cannons and warships with cannons, not to mention bombs. If they didn’t see fit to restrict the most destructive weapons of their day, why should we do so now? And why would you trust the citizens in your government with nuclear arms, but not the citizens your government serves?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      I said “pretty much everyone”, not “absolutely everyone, with zero exceptions”. “Private citizens have a First Amendment right to nuclear arms” is a fringe position.
- koolba 6y ago
  Because freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
- dixie_land 6y ago
  new psych eval requirements: "do you believe in our constitution?" "yes of course" "obviously you are a right wing extremist so we're gonna confiscate your guns and send you to re-education camp"
  - xxpor 6y ago
    It's not a religious document, you can't believe in it.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Generally people use the term ‘believe in’ to mean ‘recognize as the basis of our democracy’ in this context.
      - xxpor 6y ago
        Do they though? The conservative rhetoric around "This is what the founders said, and is therefore correct" is pure faith. Personally speaking, I couldn't give less of a crap what they thought. My opinion is the general concept is sound, but the founders were men from the 1700s who didn't have modern values or the benefit of hindsight. So much of the constitution was just a compromise between the people who happened to be there. I don't think we need to scrap the whole thing, but the argument from authority that the founders believed X, Y, and Z is pure nonsense. Who cares? They're dead. We've had nearly 250 years to learn more about what works and what doesn't. If someone wants to make a faith based argument that democracy itself is a better idea than a monarchy or a dictatorship, that's fine since that's really a pure philosophical position, but the constitution is real document that affects real things and was written by men. It can and should be revised.
        zepto 6y ago
        > the argument from authority that the founders believed X, Y, and Z is pure nonsense. Who cares? They're dead. We've had nearly 250 years to learn more about what works and what doesn't. Sure but this is a straw man. The constitution provides mechanisms for it to be changed. It has been in effect for 231 years and amended 27 times. In general with laws, I think intent matters a lot. If the law is bad, we should change it to reflect that rather than create a twisted interpretation to suit whoever is in power.
- tiahura 6y ago
  This is a bill by Sheila Jackson Lee, one of the dumbest members of Congress. The internet is full of examples of her cognitive difficulties, such as comments about Neil Armstrong landing on Mars, two Vietnams, and perhaps more to the point, our 400 year old Constitution.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    Well if you give it some time all of these may become correct statements...
- dsparkman 6y ago
  I will never understand how everyone forgets the first part of the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That pesky regulated Militia part that everyone skips over. Since the only "regulated militia" in the United States, currently, is the National Guard, that seems to state that you can't infringe on their ability to posses and carry fire arms.
  - liaukovv 6y ago
    And who will fight national guard if it gets compromised?
    - MagnumOpus 6y ago
      Not the weekend cosplayers and gun collectors. If both the Army and the NG are against you, you lose. Your AR-15 is no match to APCs with rudimentary night vision let alone tanks/artillery/air support.
      - welderdude1803 6y ago
        It is kind of funny then how we got beat in Vietnam and are being beat in the Middle East by people with rudimentary technology, and perseverance.
      - liaukovv 6y ago
        So you are arguing citizens need more guns?
        no-s 6y ago
        >> So you are arguing citizens need more guns? Good point
        stmfreak 6y ago
        That’s what I read. Where can I get me an F18 surplus?
  - 6y ago
- curtis3389 6y ago
  DC vs Heller established that there are limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
eplanit 6y ago
Symbolic gesture that won't pass, and will be used against the dems (rightfully) in 2022.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Symbolic gesture that won't pass, and will be used against the dems (rightfully) in 2022. Since the Dems have the power to pass it, if it won't pass, it probably won't be used against “the Dems” generally. It probably won't be used to much effect against even those that support it, since those that support it will probably be those whose constituents do, too.
baggy_trough 6y ago
Permanent revocation for anyone who was ever hospitalized for depression (or any mental illness).
- koolba 6y ago
  Which of course will lead to a refusal of anyone who ever intends on owning a firearm from ever seeking or discussing mental illness.
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    That would be an "unintended consequence".
- sparrish 6y ago
  People who have been hospitalized for depression don't have a right to defend themselves?
claytoneast 6y ago
How does Congress expect to pass legislation like this when there is a 6-3 conservative judge majority who will almost certainly defend maximalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment?
- beervirus 6y ago
  "Maximalist" sure is a funny way of saying "historically and textually accurate."
  - xxpor 6y ago
    Heller is only 12 years old.
    - beervirus 6y ago
      Yes, but Heller relied on the text and history from a lot longer ago than that.
      - xxpor 6y ago
        Because there was essentially nothing in between 1789 and the rise of the modern "gun rights" movement starting in the 80s to support it. The current interpretation would have been completely preposterous in the 60s and 70s. Just see how gun laws were used against the Black Panthers in the 60s.
        beervirus 6y ago
        Yes, gun restrictions do have racist roots. Excellent point.
  - claytoneast 6y ago
    Good point, we aren't generally allowed to own RPGs and attack helicopters, so it's not maximalist. However, RPGs and helicopters were not around at the time of the passing of the amendment, so I'm not sure we can that it is historically and textually accurate. For that matter, the guns this legislation would target weren't around then either, so I'm not sure how useful that criteria really is.
beervirus 6y ago
Registration is the first step toward confiscation. Thankfully, this has no chance of passing.
- isalazar 6y ago
  I certainly hope that you’re right, I am genuinely worried about this stupid bill. Not only for myself, but for my family and friends.
robcohen 6y ago
Every time the Democratic Party get some power they immediately pivot to gun control which is the ONE major issue outside abortion that motivates the other side to vote. It’s like they can’t help shooting themselves in the foot. Last I checked, long firearms (non-handgun, which includes AR-15 scary black guns and shotguns and anything not holdable by one hand) only accounted for less than 500 fatalities in the United States per year. Whatever your political leaning, this is not a particularly high number considering the other public health issues the US faces. Anyone have more up to date data on that? Last source I checked was 2009 FBI data.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Every time the Democratic Party get some power they immediately pivot to gun control which is the ONE major issue outside abortion that motivates the other side to vote. It’s like they can’t help shooting themselves in the foot. Yeah, it's baffling. Honestly, if they dropped the maximalist gun control agenda (and letting people know with stunts like AOC and Pelosi going trap shooting or something) and make it easy for reps from anti-abortion districts to be anti-abortion, I think they could literally break the back of the Republican party and get a lot of good things done in the process.
- detaro 6y ago
  > mediately pivot to gun control I might just have missed it, but I didn't see much of that recently? I don't think a bill by a single rep that didn't even find co-sponsors for it counts as a party pivot.
  - sparrish 6y ago
    This is one of three different gun control bills being presented.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  One big problem I noticed about gun death charts in the US compared to other countries lies in the data. Look at the chart names. Fbi Gun deaths in the US and gun death crimes in whatever country they're comparing too. A third of US gun deaths are suicides, according to the FBI. With suicides, it's like 10-11 deaths per capita. Without, it's like 6-7 per capita. Countries with heavy gun restrictions, like England have around 5 to 6 deaths per same capita. Gun bans dont solve anywhere near as much as people think.
omginternets 6y ago
Why is this flagged? Is this not worth discussing?
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Too controversial to be discussed?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  From the guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. “A bill with a single sponsor and no cosponsors was introduced on a perennial hot button issue” is (1) about politics and (2) not evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    Hmm, in my mind a blanket, federal-level requirement to register arms in a database is interesting and new.
D13Fd 6y ago
It amazes me that a sitting congressperson thinks that this law would pass the strict scrutiny (or even intermediate scrutiny) test before the Supreme Court. The licensing requirements are far from the "least restrictive means" to serve the state interest of preventing firearm fatalities. And the prison terms and fines are grossly excessive -- a prison term of 10-15 years and a fine of $50,000+ for handing a gun to an unlicensed person, plus 15-25 years in prison and a $75,000+ fine for the person receiving it? Come on. That's insane. Proposing legislation like this serves no purpose but to gin up controversy.
ankushnarula 6y ago
“What do you plan to do to us after you confiscate our ability to defend ourselves?” -Walter Williams
bokohut 6y ago
As an original software developer of the FBI NICS system this will involve massive technology changes. One point that stands out is the "public access database" of this proposed system which all reading this likely can formulate an opinion around the government and cybersecurity. Is this a timing play? -The NRA in shambles and looking to physically restructure while the Congress proposes new bills to thwart the gun violence. Creative none the less, sure you have the right to bear arms per the U.S. constitution but those arms are of no use if you cannot obtain ammunition.

23 points by thedanbob 6y ago

EE84M3i 6y ago

This seems to go above and beyond restrictions in even many blue states and seems incredibly unlikely to pass.

bushbaba 6y ago
But dems will be able to use this bill to go back to their district and say. We attempted and the republicans blocked it.
bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
This is the biyearly “see we tried” Gun Act.

liaukovv 6y ago

I will never understand how "shall not be infringed" can be interpreted as "free to infringe in every way"

ceejayoz 6y ago
Pretty much everyone agrees that some level of infringement is appropriate; even the NRA's not out there campaigning for the right to bear nuclear arms. Same with free speech. Libel is speech; it's never been protected speech, despite the general wording of the First Amendment.
- liaukovv 6y ago
  I don't think there are commercial manufacturers of nuclear weapons. On the other hand manpads and anti-tank missiles seem like a good fit considering the intention.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Pretty much everyone agrees that some level of infringement is appropriate; even the NRA's not out there campaigning for the right to bear nuclear arms. > Same with free speech. Libel is speech; it's never been protected speech, despite the general wording of the First Amendment. Though it's worth noting the allowed infringements on free speech by the government are incredibly narrow.
- tzs 6y ago
  The NRA used to be in favor of gun control. It was the NRA in the 1920s that proposed that states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, longer prison sentences if a gun is used in a crime, a waiting period on gun purchases, and the gun sale records be made available to the police. The NRA proposal was adopted by several states. The NRA helped draft the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, which were the first federal gun control laws. This sort of thing continue through the 1960s with the NRA supporting California's Mulford Act of 1967 which banned carrying loaded weapons in public. They also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968, which added minimum age requirements, serial number requirements, banned guns for the mentally ill and for drug addicts, restricted shipping across state lines except to collectors and federally licensed dealers, and required showing ID to purchase some types of ammo. (It originally was going to also mandate a national registry of all guns and licensing for all guns, which the NRA objected to and were removed from the bill). It wasn't until the early 1970s that the flipped from supporting quite a bit of gun control to opposing nearly all gun control.
- stmfreak 6y ago
  No, pretty much everyone doesn’t agree that some level of infringement is okay. The nuclear arms strawman is a long way from the myriad of restrictions, registrations and required permission for personal weapons. Remember that during the revolution, citizens owned personal cannons and warships with cannons, not to mention bombs. If they didn’t see fit to restrict the most destructive weapons of their day, why should we do so now? And why would you trust the citizens in your government with nuclear arms, but not the citizens your government serves?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    I said “pretty much everyone”, not “absolutely everyone, with zero exceptions”. “Private citizens have a First Amendment right to nuclear arms” is a fringe position.
koolba 6y ago
Because freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
dixie_land 6y ago
new psych eval requirements: "do you believe in our constitution?" "yes of course" "obviously you are a right wing extremist so we're gonna confiscate your guns and send you to re-education camp"
- xxpor 6y ago
  It's not a religious document, you can't believe in it.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Generally people use the term ‘believe in’ to mean ‘recognize as the basis of our democracy’ in this context.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      Do they though? The conservative rhetoric around "This is what the founders said, and is therefore correct" is pure faith. Personally speaking, I couldn't give less of a crap what they thought. My opinion is the general concept is sound, but the founders were men from the 1700s who didn't have modern values or the benefit of hindsight. So much of the constitution was just a compromise between the people who happened to be there. I don't think we need to scrap the whole thing, but the argument from authority that the founders believed X, Y, and Z is pure nonsense. Who cares? They're dead. We've had nearly 250 years to learn more about what works and what doesn't. If someone wants to make a faith based argument that democracy itself is a better idea than a monarchy or a dictatorship, that's fine since that's really a pure philosophical position, but the constitution is real document that affects real things and was written by men. It can and should be revised.
      - zepto 6y ago
        > the argument from authority that the founders believed X, Y, and Z is pure nonsense. Who cares? They're dead. We've had nearly 250 years to learn more about what works and what doesn't. Sure but this is a straw man. The constitution provides mechanisms for it to be changed. It has been in effect for 231 years and amended 27 times. In general with laws, I think intent matters a lot. If the law is bad, we should change it to reflect that rather than create a twisted interpretation to suit whoever is in power.
tiahura 6y ago
This is a bill by Sheila Jackson Lee, one of the dumbest members of Congress. The internet is full of examples of her cognitive difficulties, such as comments about Neil Armstrong landing on Mars, two Vietnams, and perhaps more to the point, our 400 year old Constitution.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  Well if you give it some time all of these may become correct statements...
dsparkman 6y ago
I will never understand how everyone forgets the first part of the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That pesky regulated Militia part that everyone skips over. Since the only "regulated militia" in the United States, currently, is the National Guard, that seems to state that you can't infringe on their ability to posses and carry fire arms.
- liaukovv 6y ago
  And who will fight national guard if it gets compromised?
  - MagnumOpus 6y ago
    Not the weekend cosplayers and gun collectors. If both the Army and the NG are against you, you lose. Your AR-15 is no match to APCs with rudimentary night vision let alone tanks/artillery/air support.
    - welderdude1803 6y ago
      It is kind of funny then how we got beat in Vietnam and are being beat in the Middle East by people with rudimentary technology, and perseverance.
    - liaukovv 6y ago
      So you are arguing citizens need more guns?
      - no-s 6y ago
        >> So you are arguing citizens need more guns? Good point
      - stmfreak 6y ago
        That’s what I read. Where can I get me an F18 surplus?
- 6y ago
curtis3389 6y ago
DC vs Heller established that there are limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

eplanit 6y ago

Symbolic gesture that won't pass, and will be used against the dems (rightfully) in 2022.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Symbolic gesture that won't pass, and will be used against the dems (rightfully) in 2022. Since the Dems have the power to pass it, if it won't pass, it probably won't be used against “the Dems” generally. It probably won't be used to much effect against even those that support it, since those that support it will probably be those whose constituents do, too.

baggy_trough 6y ago

Permanent revocation for anyone who was ever hospitalized for depression (or any mental illness).

koolba 6y ago
Which of course will lead to a refusal of anyone who ever intends on owning a firearm from ever seeking or discussing mental illness.
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  That would be an "unintended consequence".
sparrish 6y ago
People who have been hospitalized for depression don't have a right to defend themselves?

claytoneast 6y ago

How does Congress expect to pass legislation like this when there is a 6-3 conservative judge majority who will almost certainly defend maximalist interpretations of the 2nd amendment?

beervirus 6y ago
"Maximalist" sure is a funny way of saying "historically and textually accurate."
- xxpor 6y ago
  Heller is only 12 years old.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    Yes, but Heller relied on the text and history from a lot longer ago than that.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      Because there was essentially nothing in between 1789 and the rise of the modern "gun rights" movement starting in the 80s to support it. The current interpretation would have been completely preposterous in the 60s and 70s. Just see how gun laws were used against the Black Panthers in the 60s.
      - beervirus 6y ago
        Yes, gun restrictions do have racist roots. Excellent point.
- claytoneast 6y ago
  Good point, we aren't generally allowed to own RPGs and attack helicopters, so it's not maximalist. However, RPGs and helicopters were not around at the time of the passing of the amendment, so I'm not sure we can that it is historically and textually accurate. For that matter, the guns this legislation would target weren't around then either, so I'm not sure how useful that criteria really is.

beervirus 6y ago

Registration is the first step toward confiscation. Thankfully, this has no chance of passing.

isalazar 6y ago
I certainly hope that you’re right, I am genuinely worried about this stupid bill. Not only for myself, but for my family and friends.

robcohen 6y ago

Every time the Democratic Party get some power they immediately pivot to gun control which is the ONE major issue outside abortion that motivates the other side to vote. It’s like they can’t help shooting themselves in the foot. Last I checked, long firearms (non-handgun, which includes AR-15 scary black guns and shotguns and anything not holdable by one hand) only accounted for less than 500 fatalities in the United States per year. Whatever your political leaning, this is not a particularly high number considering the other public health issues the US faces. Anyone have more up to date data on that? Last source I checked was 2009 FBI data.

ardy42 6y ago
> Every time the Democratic Party get some power they immediately pivot to gun control which is the ONE major issue outside abortion that motivates the other side to vote. It’s like they can’t help shooting themselves in the foot. Yeah, it's baffling. Honestly, if they dropped the maximalist gun control agenda (and letting people know with stunts like AOC and Pelosi going trap shooting or something) and make it easy for reps from anti-abortion districts to be anti-abortion, I think they could literally break the back of the Republican party and get a lot of good things done in the process.
detaro 6y ago
> mediately pivot to gun control I might just have missed it, but I didn't see much of that recently? I don't think a bill by a single rep that didn't even find co-sponsors for it counts as a party pivot.
- sparrish 6y ago
  This is one of three different gun control bills being presented.
NoOneNew 6y ago
One big problem I noticed about gun death charts in the US compared to other countries lies in the data. Look at the chart names. Fbi Gun deaths in the US and gun death crimes in whatever country they're comparing too. A third of US gun deaths are suicides, according to the FBI. With suicides, it's like 10-11 deaths per capita. Without, it's like 6-7 per capita. Countries with heavy gun restrictions, like England have around 5 to 6 deaths per same capita. Gun bans dont solve anywhere near as much as people think.

omginternets 6y ago

Why is this flagged? Is this not worth discussing?

aww_dang 6y ago
Too controversial to be discussed?
dragonwriter 6y ago
From the guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. “A bill with a single sponsor and no cosponsors was introduced on a perennial hot button issue” is (1) about politics and (2) not evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
- omginternets 6y ago
  Hmm, in my mind a blanket, federal-level requirement to register arms in a database is interesting and new.

D13Fd 6y ago

It amazes me that a sitting congressperson thinks that this law would pass the strict scrutiny (or even intermediate scrutiny) test before the Supreme Court. The licensing requirements are far from the "least restrictive means" to serve the state interest of preventing firearm fatalities. And the prison terms and fines are grossly excessive -- a prison term of 10-15 years and a fine of $50,000+ for handing a gun to an unlicensed person, plus 15-25 years in prison and a $75,000+ fine for the person receiving it? Come on. That's insane. Proposing legislation like this serves no purpose but to gin up controversy.

ankushnarula 6y ago

“What do you plan to do to us after you confiscate our ability to defend ourselves?” -Walter Williams

bokohut 6y ago

As an original software developer of the FBI NICS system this will involve massive technology changes. One point that stands out is the "public access database" of this proposed system which all reading this likely can formulate an opinion around the government and cybersecurity. Is this a timing play? -The NRA in shambles and looking to physically restructure while the Congress proposes new bills to thwart the gun violence. Creative none the less, sure you have the right to bear arms per the U.S. constitution but those arms are of no use if you cannot obtain ammunition.