TexasCHLforum.com

H.R.256
Title: To prevent children's access to firearms.
Sponsor: Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 1/5/2007) Cosponsors (None)

1) "The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256, will impose severe penalties should you have “recklessly disregarded the risk� and a child is able to gain possession of your firearm and use it to cause death or serious bodily harm. It also seeks to raise the minimum age for which someone can own a semi-automatic rifle from eighteen to twenty-one and will mandate that children under the age of eighteen in attendance at a gun show be accompanied by an adult at all times.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00256:


H.R. 428
Title: To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns.
Sponsor: Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] (introduced 1/11/2007) Cosponsors (None)

2) "To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns," H.R. 428, aims to do exactly as the title implies: Take a quick break from banning real guns and start banning toy guns.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00428:


H.R. 297
Title: To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 1/5/2007) Cosponsors (1)

3) "The NICS Improvement Act," H.R. 297, is being proposed. However, there is no information available on the bill at the time of this writing from the Library of Congress.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00297:


H.R. 96
Title: To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at events that provide a venue for the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (3)

4) "The Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007," H.R. 96, will basically destroy any gun show or private sale of firearms as we know it. Alan Korwin, noted firearms author says of this bill,

"Under the original draft, currently legal gun shows are outlawed without prior federal permission. Gun show promoters must agree to warrantless searches in order to operate, and may be arrested if private citizens talk at the show about gun sales they wish to complete away from the show. The right to assemble peaceably at a gun show or even plan for one, carries stiff prison terms unless federal licenses are issued in advance. I am not making this up.

"Massive new bureaucracy is created because all shows and their exhibitors must be registered 30 days before the show, then again 72 hours before the show, and again five days after the show. That's in addition to registering anyone who walks in, plus "any other information" the Secretary of the Treasury decides, by regulation, is necessary on vendors, attendees, and the show itself."

We all knew that the newly elected anti-gun majority would not waste much time in proposing new laws that further infringe our Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Now is the time to contact our representatives to make sure our voices are heard concerning these issues.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00096:

Sorry. I didn't realize this had already been posted under this thread:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... php?t=5353

I know this sounds crazy, but this is great. The worst case scenario for us would be for the Dems to leave guns alone until the 2008 elections, hold or increase their majority, win the Whitehouse, then come after us for at least four years.

This will let us find out if the newly elected Dems are truly pro-gun as they claimed during their campaigns. If so, good. If not, then we have Bush who may veto anti-gun bills and we can make it an issue in 2008

It's a bad situation, but we have to deal with it.

Chas.

I bet they've been polishing these in the back rooms for 6 years waiting for their time.

Charles has an interesting point about them showing their hand early. Do you suppose Bush would use his veto power?

I hope he is not willing to sell us out on the home front to win support for his Iraq plan.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I know this sounds crazy, but this is great. The worst case scenario for us would be for the Dems to leave guns alone until the 2008 elections, hold or increase their majority, win the Whitehouse, then come after us for at least four years.

This will let us find out if the newly elected Dems are truly pro-gun as they claimed during their campaigns. If so, good. If not, then we have Bush who may veto anti-gun bills and we can make it an issue in 2008

It's a bad situation, but we have to deal with it.

Chas.

Pickpocket wrote:H.R.256
Title: To prevent children's access to firearms.
Sponsor: Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] (introduced 1/5/2007) Cosponsors (None)

1) "The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256, will impose severe penalties should you have “recklessly disregarded the risk� and a child is able to gain possession of your firearm and use it to cause death or serious bodily harm. It also seeks to raise the minimum age for which someone can own a semi-automatic rifle from eighteen to twenty-one and will mandate that children under the age of eighteen in attendance at a gun show be accompanied by an adult at all times.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00256:

got no problem with that.
I think it's a great idea to push the Recklessly Disreguarded Negligence thing. I bought a gunsafe, and I don't even have kids! my ol' lady has a TYOD, so I figured it was worth the money and effort. it just is.
under 18 at a gun show? keep'em with their parents. I don't want little thugs runnin' amock. course, you need to define "accompanied." which is probably done in another statute, so thurr ya urr.

and if they are going to raise the minimum age of buying a semi-auto rifle to 21, I guess they should raise the enlistment age to 21, cause it'd seem rediculous to allow an 18 to use a full auto "assault rifle" (whey smart, you're welcome), but not a 21 yrold to use a semi.
course, I've always thought it dumb that you can legally go to war, get shot all to heck, but can't buy a beer.
but I'll save that rant for a weekend....

casselthief wrote:got no problem with that.

It's not a suitable matter for federal legislation. It's already illegal in Texas to allow a child to have unauthorized access to a weapon (PC §46.13). I'd be surprised if there was a state other than Alaska that didn't have a similar law.

- Jim

It's not a suitable matter for federal legislation. It's already illegal in Texas to allow a child to have unauthorized access to a weapon (PC §46.13). I'd be surprised if there was a state other than Alaska that didn't have a similar law.

Exactly. This is a classic case of introducing new legislation for something we already ineffectively legislate.

Under 18 at a gun show? I don't care. Not enough to make a law about it anyways. Yes, parents should keep their kids with them, but shouldn't parents and/or the show sponsors work that out for themselves?

Charles - as strange as your point seems, I think you're right. They're tipping their hand early. But I also think that they're smart enough to realize they are doing so...in which case they are testing the waters of Bush's commitment to his other agendas by putting this carrot out there.

Pickpocket wrote:Under 18 at a gun show?

I think the bogeyman that they're afraid of is teenagers under 18 buying weapons. I can't imagine anyone would be stupid enough to sell a weapon to a kid at a gun show.

Don't most gun show operators require people to be 18 or over, or with an adult? It's not something I ever bothered to notice.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

casselthief wrote:got no problem with that.

It's not a suitable matter for federal legislation. It's already illegal in Texas to allow a child to have unauthorized access to a weapon (PC §46.13). I'd be surprised if there was a state other than Alaska that didn't have a similar law.

- Jim

In Alaska, it might be criminal to NOT allow persons under 18 access to firearms. There's some mighty mean critters up there.... I think this is definitely one to leave up to the states.

There are some mighty mean critters in Texas, too -- mostly two-legged.

PC §46.13 is an interesting law. It doesn't apply in cases of self defense or "an agricultural enterprise," whatever that means.

- Jim

casselthief wrote: got no problem with that.
I think it's a great idea to push the Recklessly Disreguarded Negligence thing.

I have big problems with it. My first problem is that it is not the area for federal law. They do not have this authority under the Constitution.

My second complaint with it is that this is the way to get kids who don't know jack about firearms. That is an old trick for a longterm program, get the kids involved on your side early and you will win in the long run.

I make my kids safe around guns by teaching them to respect my property rights. They don't touch my guns, computer, or any other property without permission. If I put the guns in a safe because the feds make me do so, how do my kids learn not to touch them. It also makes guns more attractive to kids (thinking underage drinking) and I bet you cannot design a safe a determined kid who lives there and knows his parents cannot get in. They call it social engineering but we usually can guess the numbers of the combo if we know the people well enough. This sets up a deadly accident.

And finally, what do you do with my kids? I gave them the rifles on their 10th birthday. They are now their property, not mine. They are responsible for cleaning and maintaining them, not me. My oldest is 28 now, and has been taking care of his guns for 18 years. My youngest daughter has been taking care of hers for over a year. And I plan on doing it with the youngest son in three years for his birthday too. Is this reckless disreguard? I was not reckless, I knew they had the firearms. They probably won't be too reckless either, they will hit where they are aiming (I hope).

I don't like the govt meddling unnecessarily in ppl's business.

Yeah! down with gub'mint!

no, srsly. RothStein, I really hear your point. and agree.
However, I have watched a 8yrold boy bleed to death because a gun was not properly stowed, and blah blah blah, he got shot.

the key here is Reckless. I think what you do is just fine. nuttin' wrong there.
but here's my thought process. My ol' lady's kid is ten. I haven't known the child that long, didn't raise her. Her mama did. and her mama wasn't around guns till she met me.
Mama's fine with guns, and I am trying to incorporate some teaching towards the kid, too. but I don't live out in tha cun'tree, so I can't exactly take her out the back door and show her how things are.
and a gun range is no place for a kid that doesn't already know about guns.
You disagree? well, try taking an adult out to one and have a conversation while everyone around you blasting away.
anyway, I digress.....
so I can only imagine how the rest of the world handles things of this nature, and with a law hanging over my (and other's) head, I'm more inclined to be sure no one can get to my pistols when I may not be looking.
The law isn't necessarily for me, or ya'll, but for people less safe, or more dumb, or people that maybe don't live up to the higher standards that we adhere to.
the law itself is only applicable if the kid hurts/kills someone with the gun. That way they can tie the person from whom they got the weapon in the first place. That, is what I like.
about the under 18 at a gunshow thing. I concede, leave that to States as well as the individual Show organizers. much better that way.
enjoy.