This Bill was introduced by Sheila Jackson (D) TX Congressional District 18 on January 4, 2021. There are no co-sponsors. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The Text for The Bill was released on January 28th, H.R. 127
A brief overview:
-Bob
*****
Go to the link in the text and read the whole bill.
Applications, an $800 fee, classes, a psychiatric exam, interviews with family..... if this isn't a blatant infringement on our Rights, I don't know what is.
A normal tactic is to throw out a "super extreme" version and then recant back from that slightly to say "it was not as bad as all that." This surely would be that extreme version. And from TX....
ReplyDeleteGotta give the NRA room to fight the original bill down to the form that eventually passes. During this time, both sides fundraise to "stop the gun-rights/grabber extremists."
DeleteNot playing the game anymore...
Absolutely the M.O. It is how they proceed with everything (see 'Rona headlines and subsequent management). Push up against and over the line, back off a tiny bit but the line has now shifted. Wash, rinse, repeat, and you end up with a frameshift mutation. Somehow people keep falling for it. Undiluted insanity regardless.
DeleteI realize that Houston is located in Texas, sad to say. But no one recognizes Lee's district being anywhere remotely like most of Texas. Austin and parts and pieces in DFW are looking the same. The day will come these commies hell holes will need to be cleaned out.
DeleteWith no co-sponsors this looks like it will go over like a turd in a punch bowl but will solidify certain "progressives" with their elitist private security constituency. The remnants or Silicon Nancy's base and a few others that wish to rule the masses will hype it to raise money but don't forget the largest increase in gun owners during the recent buying frenzy is minorities. Everyone is a conservative when you come for their money.
ReplyDeleteDeathro Bodine
and get them on a list
DeleteWTF?!? How many times does the USSC have to say we have the right to not be infringed? In 2008 it was Heller and in 2010 McDonald. These cases should make it clear we will NOT give up our guns nor ask for permission !!!!!
ReplyDeleteThey're going by the fact that the USSC fucked us in 1934, 1968 and with the AWB and the ban on manufacturing fullauto for civilians.
Delete2008 and 2010 were minor losses for the gun banners.
And where was the NRA in 1934 and 1968 et al? On the side of the gun banners.
Ask our permission? Ha. National Socialists never ask permission.
Given that courts, including the Supremes, have upheld about 40,000 and counting infringements, you can't put overly much faith in them.
Delete@Oldvet1950 - If the Biden Supreme Court packing scheme gets thru changing it from 9 to 15 members, I'd expect this bill to be found "Constitutional". After all, it doesn't 'explicitly' repeal the 2nd amendment. It just puts in 'reasonable restrictions' on 'dangerous people', and you wouldn't want another Sandy Hill, would you? I can easily see that offered as the argument with anyone disagreeing tarred as a reprobate who needs to be looked under this bill (and also deplatformed from Google, Facebook, & Twitter, along with being fired from your job, etc).
DeleteAs Beans noted, the Communists (and National Socialists) never ask for permission, and the Communists that are being appointed to our government think it's their moment to seize power. Seizing the guns is one of the explicit points in the Communist seizure of power, as noted by Nikita Khrushchev.
Won't defend today's NRA, but in 1934 their focus was on education: gun safety and marksmanship. I don't know what they were doing in 1968 but in 1961 they were still running marksmanship classes at Police Athletic League ranges in New Jersey. I agree that they've become a piggy bank for their executives these days.
DeleteBenefactor Life Member
Not nope, but hell nope.
ReplyDeleteNot just family interviews, interviews with former spouses.
ReplyDeleteThink your ex won't tell them you're a serial killer just waiting to happen?
How about we have the same requirements as that other constitutional right, voting. Either fees, psychological tests, and ID check, or the other extreme, guns and ammo by mail-order with the option to have someone pick them up for the whole neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteThey seem oblivious to the fact that voting is a civil right whereas the right to self-defense is a natural right. One that congress is expressly prohibited from infringing. Doesn't mean they won't try it, the courts won't uphold it, and LEO's (who are lapdogs for the state- not police officers) won't enforce it. The only appropriate minimal response is non-compliance.
DeleteAnyone who serves in the military or takes a .gov position at this point has clearly lost all touch with the idea of "support and defend". There simply isn't any way to justify "service" as anything other than for the benefit of oligarchs.
ReplyDeleteAnytime someone thanks me for my service, my response is "thank you for your sentiment, but all I did was order the killing of a bunch of innocent people who posed no threat to our way of life so that some evil rich people could get richer".
Jackson is one of the stupider members of Congress and none are very sharp. Has she never heard of Come and Take It? Bet you that Jamima won't be the one to come and take it.
ReplyDeleteThe only people who should undergo extensive psychological and criminal checks are those running for elective office. Oh, and drug/alcohol testing.
ReplyDeleteSo, her district is very poor and crime saturated and I wonder how many that have voted for her will do what she wants. The criminals won't so why should anyone else? 100-150K plus up to 40 years for suicide. Anyone else see the problem with that?
ReplyDeleteBottom line is the left needs to brought to heel pretty damn quick.
"Bottom line is the left needs to brought to heel pretty damn quick."
DeleteGiven the sweep of history over the last century plus, don't hold your breath
The psychological tests are straight from the old USSR. They would use so-called psychological tests to declare a person as incompetent, in order to have a "legitimate" reason to confiscate all of the assets, or to ship them off to a re-education camp, etc.
ReplyDeleteJust say no to any psychological tests that the government may try to mandate for gun ownership, or any other rights for that matter. It is a sure bet that any answers that don't line up with the leftists' current idealogy, such as "How many genders are there?", will cause you to be declared incompetent.
"except that if the transferee of the firearm possess or uses the firearm during or in relation to a crime, an unintentional shooting, or suicide, the transferor shall be fined not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 25 years and not more than 40 years, or both"
ReplyDelete...So if you sell a firearm to a acquaintance who passes the background check and he wife committes suicide you do 15-40 and pay (yeah, right) a $150.000.00 fine?
Give me a freekin' break!
Imagine how many criminals there would be... Half the country!
ReplyDeleteAh, this will be classic. They'll take a few things off their wish list and tell us they're 'compromising', so why can't we meet them halfway. It's like a robber holding a gun to your head demanding your money, taking half, and arguing it shouldn't be considered breaking the law since you he compromised with you.
ReplyDeleteThis is what's known as a "28 Step Process". "No, we are not infringing on your 2A rights. You can still keep and bare them. We are just going to make it hard as fuck to do so."
ReplyDeleteSo its a war you want, then thats what you'll get.
ReplyDeleteYou can have all of my bullets for free, at 3200 fps.
I double dog dare them. They'll have a war on their hands quicker than a bad taco
ReplyDeleteI sent a message to my local dickhead liberal democrat congressman Little Jimmy Panetta expressing my concerns regarding HR 127. I'm sure he doesn't give a shit what I think, I slam him all the time on Facebook.
ReplyDeleteBitch can kiss my hairy white ass if she thinks for a second that I'll follow that shit.
ReplyDeleteI am gonna call my congresscritters and tell them to get on board and get this passed.
ReplyDeleteI am tired of the games, tired of being threatened, tired of being othered.
Pass it and let's get this party started.
These dumbasses should be ass raped with a cactus.
ReplyDeleteCan someone set up a date for SJL with Dennis Rader the BTK nutjob?
The Fed Gov has been BLATANTLY infringing on ALL of our rights including the Second for DECADES. And getting away with it. This is just the logical conclusion of those efforts. It's not as if the left hasn't been telling us loudly and openly for years that they were going to disarm us as soon as they achieved the level of control they believed necessary. Now they believe they are fully in power, unassailable and beyond accountability. And they
ReplyDeletehave every right to believe that they are in fact beyond accountability. Until WE prove
that belief to be in error they will continue their nonstop never ending assault on us, our
rights and our freedom.
I suggest we require ALL elected officials to be drug screened and undergo mental and financial screening every 30 days. They should be required to attend and pass classes on the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the limitations of politicians in a Democratic Republic. Pay will be $2 a day plus reasonable expenses, no liquor or high end restaurant or lodging, while in session only. No PACs of junkets allowed and lobbyist are forever banned under penalty of imprisonment for no less than 40 years. That would actually be a huge improvement over the trash we now put up with.
ReplyDeleteJD
Sheila Jackson Lee represents (and I use the word loosely) inner-city Houston. At one point, the Houston DA didn't recognize the legality of the Texas Concealed Carry permit. If you were caught in Houston with a concealed weapon, you went to jail whether you had a permit or not. You had to hire a lawyer, appear before a judge (who would dismiss the charges), and later sue to get your gun back. Usually, it would have been destroyed (or tagged as destroyed and taken by some upper ranking office for his collection) and you were out of luck. You were also out of pocket for attorney's fees and court fees.
ReplyDelete