Assault Weapons Ban Bill, 2019 US Senate

[digitalphoenix]

Sounds like we all need to have another gun rally at our state capitals.

 

[MRP2003]

I wonder what Trump and the NRA will say about it.

The NRA has gotten weaker with Trump in the office. Both will likely let this run and then the NRA will denounce it at the end but essentially do nothing. At least with this bill, it will grandfather in existing which is similar to the Clinton AW Ban.

 

[shootersix]

honestly I see the kommiecrats using this as a test bed, they know it'll go nowhere, BUT if what I think happens, happens (kommicrats take house, senate, and presidency in the next election), then they can re introduce it where it'll pass.

with this bill (in this session) they can see what "so called" consertive and moderate members of congress will support it 2 years!.

as much as I want the republicans to keep control of all 3 legislative branches, I bet we wont, all the youth who believe "socialism works" will vote in the next election, and the kommiecrats will take over, the hold on to your hats, cause change will come!

my daughter who voted in the last election (her first time ever voting) voted for mr. trump, and said she wont vote for him again, my other daughter who's never voted at all, is registering just to vote against president trump, and nothing I say to them is changing their minds.

I see this happening all across America, sure, we'll keep win some seats (ie Mike Braun) but well lose some as well, (ie cortez winning) due to the brain washing (ie free college, Obamacare, "the 99%" bull$**t") that the commiecrats preach!

 

[MindfulMan]

Unfortunately, I agree with your predictions, shootersix.

 

[2A_Tom]

honestly I see the kommiecrats using this as a test bed, they know it'll go nowhere, BUT if what I think happens, happens (kommicrats take house, senate, and presidency in the next election), then they can re introduce it where it'll pass.

with this bill (in this session) they can see what "so called" consertive and moderate members of congress will support it 2 years!.

as much as I want the republicans to keep control of all 3 legislative branches ( Ocaio-Cortezesque), I bet we wont, all the youth who believe "socialism works" will vote in the next election, and the kommiecrats will take over, the hold on to your hats, cause change will come!

We can not KEEP all three, because

1. there are only 2
2. we currently only control 1
3. The Executive only figures in to either sign or veto a law

my daughter who voted in the last election (her first time ever voting) voted for mr. trump, and said she wont vote for him again, my other daughter who's never voted at all, is registering just to vote against president trump, and nothing I say to them is changing their minds.

This is anecdotal. Someone can say they see a lot of people who have turned to Trump.

I see this happening all across America, sure, we'll keep win some seats (ie Mike Braun) but well lose some as well, (ie cortez winning) due to the brain washing (ie free college, Obamacare, "the 99%" bull$**t") that the commiecrats preach

I live in NWI, I do not travel, but I think that in order to see this happening all over the country

1. you would need to be all over the country
2. or listening to the main stream media.

Lets not give up.

 

[shootersix]

honestly I see the kommiecrats using this as a test bed, they know it'll go nowhere, BUT if what I think happens, happens (kommicrats take house, senate, and presidency in the next election), then they can re introduce it where it'll pass.

with this bill (in this session) they can see what "so called" consertive and moderate members of congress will support it 2 years!.

as much as I want the republicans to keep control of all 3 legislative branches ( Ocaio-Cortezesque), I bet we wont, all the youth who believe "socialism works" will vote in the next election, and the kommiecrats will take over, the hold on to your hats, cause change will come!

We can not KEEP all three, because

1. there are only 2 https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/branches-of-government there are 3 legislative, executive, and judicial! (and since executive appoints judicial, and is approved by legislative, its a political office)
2. we currently only control 1 yes you're right, as of January 3rd (but we did from 2016 till then)
3. The Executive only figures in to either sign or veto a law (but can be overridden, https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/override_of_a_veto.htm)

my daughter who voted in the last election (her first time ever voting) voted for mr. trump, and said she wont vote for him again, my other daughter who's never voted at all, is registering just to vote against president trump, and nothing I say to them is changing their minds.

This is anecdotal. Someone can say they see a lot of people who have turned to Trump.

I see this happening all across America, sure, we'll keep win some seats (ie Mike Braun) but well lose some as well, (ie cortez winning) due to the brain washing (ie free college, Obamacare, "the 99%" bull$**t") that the commiecrats preach

I live in NWI, I do not travel, but I think that in order to see this happening all over the country

1. you would need to be all over the country
2. or listening to the main stream media. (I watch the news, I see all the demonstrations, the same ones that haven't happened in the past)

 

[2A_Tom]

honestly I see the kommiecrats using this as a test bed, they know it'll go nowhere, BUT if what I think happens, happens (kommicrats take house, senate, and presidency in the next election), then they can re introduce it where it'll pass.

with this bill (in this session) they can see what "so called" consertive and moderate members of congress will support it 2 years!.

as much as I want the republicans to keep control of all 3 legislative branches ( Ocaio-Cortezesque), I bet we wont, all the youth who believe "socialism works" will vote in the next election, and the kommiecrats will take over, the hold on to your hats, cause change will come!

We can not KEEP all three, because

1. there are only 2 https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/branches-of-government there are 3 legislative, executive, and judicial! (and since executive appoints judicial, and is approved by legislative, its a political office)
2. we currently only control 1 yes you're right, as of January 3rd (but we did from 2016 till then)
3. The Executive only figures in to either sign or veto a law (but can be overridden, https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/override_of_a_veto.htm)

my daughter who voted in the last election (her first time ever voting) voted for mr. trump, and said she wont vote for him again, my other daughter who's never voted at all, is registering just to vote against president trump, and nothing I say to them is changing their minds.

This is anecdotal. Someone can say they see a lot of people who have turned to Trump.

I see this happening all across America, sure, we'll keep win some seats (ie Mike Braun) but well lose some as well, (ie cortez winning) due to the brain washing (ie free college, Obamacare, "the 99%" bull$**t") that the commiecrats preach

I live in NWI, I do not travel, but I think that in order to see this happening all over the country

1. you would need to be all over the country
2. or listening to the main stream media. (I watch the news, I see all the demonstrations, the same ones that haven't happened in the past)

Why yes there are 3 BRANCHES of government.

 

[indykid]

Dear Lord, the infighting among firearm owners alone (right or wrong) will assure our rights will continue to be trampled on.

 

[actaeon277]

Look at the quoted text in post 45.
It says... 3 legislative branches.

Not 3 branches of government.

 

[2A_Tom]

No reason to be correct when you are on a rant, we learned that from miss Alexandria.

 

[Dybber]

Don’t confuse politicians with facts. None of them pay attention to those pesky little things.

 

[2A_Tom]

Well, If we do speak to them it is better if we use succinct factual language.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can say the three legislative branches with impunity. She will never be questioned on her understanding of anything.

We must be totally correct in our statements at all times if we are to question the anti-gun crowd on their use of improper use of terms and lack of knowledge of the Constitution.

 

[MCgrease08]

Well, If we do speak to them it is better if we use succinct factual language.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can say the three legislative branches with impunity. She will never be questioned on her understanding of anything.

We must be totally correct in our statements at all times if we are to question the anti-gun crowd on their use of improper use of terms and lack of knowledge of the Constitution.

Until you start arguing against gun control and start correcting people on silly terms like "full semi-auto," "assault-style weapons," "magazine vs clip" and then they argue that we're too hung up on "semantics."

 

[greed]

If you want to follow the status of the bill see this link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66/actions

 

[digitalphoenix]

If you want to follow the status of the bill see this link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/66/actions

Palpatine attempting to execute order 66, eh?

 

[migunner]

A lot deeper than the title.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...NgBd2slJXkeOkCBx3HG6nWKCyMYnwlai6rQ2ML9yGyXAA


Three Democratic senators have introduced a bill titled the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2019,” which, if passed into law, would ban 205 “military-style assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Senators Dianne Feinstein, Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal introduced the measure on Wednesday. It’s a proposed update to the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017.
While gun owners would be permitted to keep existing firearms and magazines, the bill would ban “the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name,” according to a press release.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]There are NO Moderate Democrats. There are Radical Communist Socialists and the ones that blindly vote with the Radical’s policy with no hint of moderation!!!!!!![/FONT][/FONT]

 

[griggs]

How about the Justice Department files charges on these clowns for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution? It could put this crap to bed for good.

I'm with you.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Here's a draft for our Senators. Please copy/paste/edit/e-mail/print and mail as needed.

(Senator Young/Braun),
I would appreciate your help in opposing SB 66: Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

This bill does nothing to protect the citizens of this nation. Worse it seek it make millions of law-abiding citizens criminals.


The term “assault weapon” has come to mean anything, anyone wants to ban. His great country had a so-called “assault weapons ban” from 1994-2003. Like SB 66, this ban was based largely on cosmetic features which read like a nomenclature for the AR-15 rifle.


According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), since the end of the 1994-2003 ban, 16 million of the previously banned rifles have been manufactured. To say these are “in common use” is an understatement. As we learned during the Brett Kavanagh confirmation hearings, Senator Feinstein has no grasp of the term “in common use”, let alone judicial precedent. US v Miller (1939) gives us “in common use at the time”. This was also referenced in the landmark DC v Heller (2008) case, “in common use for lawful purposes”.

Senator Feinstein’s own words from 1995 give us all we need to know about her intentions, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it.” “Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.” If both history and current events have taught us anything, nothing is further from the truth.

In his report to the National Institute of Justice in 2004, Christopher Koper stated, “[FONT=&quot]Should it be renewed, the ban might reduce gunshot victimizations. This effect is likely to be small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Again, thank you for your opposition to this bill.[/FONT]


Name
Address
Phone
e-mail

 

[Hohn]

Seeing as how the '94 ban survived every court challenge...I don't see this being a path forward.

Pre-Heller and Pre-McDonald, I'm not sure that's necessarily as obvious this time. Not to mention the court composition is a bit different now.

 

[brotherbill3]

I just read and shared this on FB ...
BUT it would be good to add here.


To make a few brief points ... our founder's had a deep mistrust and did not desire to keep a standing army beyond a menial, nominal count -


Tenche Coxe writing in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, asked “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom?” He continued by affirming that “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”


To which I give you Indiana State Constitution Art 12. Sec. 1:
A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.


Anyone wanting to ban "certain weapons" or "weapons of war" - is wrong. PERIOD.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/20...3GgSIAUZBIix2_gX0pVYN3P7gNyEh4RqhluRax0A4YNVU