House gun control proposals: One is new to me.

House gun control proposals: One is new to me.

This is a discussion on House gun control proposals: One is new to me. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The Democratically controlled House Judiciary committee voted to advance three bills to the floor that would ban magazines that hold ten or more rounds; provide ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree10Likes
  • 6 Post By Bikenut
  • 1 Post By m5215
  • 1 Post By Nix
  • 1 Post By Psycho41
  • 1 Post By spclopr8tr

Thread: House gun control proposals: One is new to me.

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,254

    House gun control proposals: One is new to me.

    The Democratically controlled House Judiciary committee voted to advance three bills to the floor that would ban magazines that hold ten or more rounds; provide funds to incentivize states to establish red flag laws; and make it illegal for someone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime to own a gun.

    The first two we've seen before. The second was also proposed by Rubio, who of course is a Republican in the Senate. But the third is a new one to me and strikes me as very dangerous. Depending on the jurisdiction, a misdemeanor hate crime can be be something as benign as verbal abuse or insults, or triggering emails or social media posts, regarding sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. I bet pretty much all of us have done something, sometime that could fall in that category and the House is proposing that would negate your gun rights, probably permanently.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...ity-magazines/
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  2. #2
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    868
    So much wisdom ..........

    “Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

    ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  3. #3
    Member Array m5215's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Posts
    261
    I think a magazine ban is in the works especially if they feel they will not be able to ban the weapons this time around. I was going to buy a new pistol this week but I think I will use that money to get the magazines I want for all my other firearms.
    The Old Anglo likes this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Nix
    Nix is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Nix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,254
    Interesting. The concept of a "Hate Crime" seems pretty darned broad and easy to apply in an arbitrary manner. I suspect our 2A rights are ripe for infringement.
    Sister likes this.

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,716
    For anyone wondering what the brand-new class of "misdemeanor hate crime" entails:

    https://static.politico.com/f9/c8/4e...sey-1-page.pdf
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    869
    Quote Originally Posted by Nix View Post
    Interesting. The concept of a "Hate Crime" seems pretty darned broad and easy to apply in an arbitrary manner. I suspect our 2A rights are ripe for infringement.
    Ding, ding ding! The progressives today are under the belief that any speech that offends is hate speech. You know, such evil things as not calling someone by their made up, preferred pronouns. Or simply stating facts that are uncomfortable if they potentially show a problem within a particular race, religion, or any of the (current) 325 genders, etc. They are of the opinion that free speech does not apply to this made up "hate speech". They are completely oblivious to the fact that the very intent of free speech was to protect speech that others (especially the gov't) disagree with and is sometimes offensive (Of course, this does not include any calls for violence).

    We are accelerating towards a point where many believe our rights only apply to the "collective" and not the individual.
    airslot likes this.

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array spclopr8tr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    SE Tennessee
    Posts
    3,734
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    For anyone wondering what the brand-new class of "misdemeanor hate crime" entails:

    https://static.politico.com/f9/c8/4e...sey-1-page.pdf
    That doesn't seem particularly broad or vague to me. SCOTUS has already ruled there is no such thing as "hate speech". Verbal abuse, social media comments, or emails would not constitute misdemeanor hate crimes.

    In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s hateful and disparaging speech directed towards African-Americans, holding that such speech could only be limited if it posed an “imminent danger” of inciting violence. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that a state could only forbid or proscribe advocacy that is “directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
    Hate Speech and Hate Crime | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues
    The Old Anglo likes this.
    "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton

    Patron Life Member NRA
    SAF - CCRKBA
    NAGR / GOA
    TFA-LAC / Save the 2A
    Handgunlaw.us Donor

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •