# House of Representatives taking up the latest iteration of the "Assault Weapons Ban"



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Through some late night chicanery, a 9:30pm committee convened last night.
They worked toward a rule change to drop the requirement to allow 24 hours of debate before a floor vote on a bill.
That rule change passed.

Now up to an hour of debate will commence before the floor vote.
As I'm writing this, Drunken Slurs Pelosi is speaking on the floor.
Call your representatives. I don't care what party they are.
(202) 224-3121 us the US House switch board.
CALL NOW!

It doesn't matter if you think it will fail in the Senate. It doesn't matter if we know it will fail against SCOTUS ruling.
We MUST let them know this is unacceptable.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The vote is over.
It passed the house, 217 to 213, with 2 republican turncoats.
When I know their names, you will too.

Their first step of passage through the House is complete.
It will now be sent to the Senate.
Contact your senators.

This bill has no sunset clause like the former one. If it passes both houses, we know president Houseplant will be told to sign a paper put in front of him and wave and smile.
Unless SCOTUS stomps it into the dirt with a quick court case, we could see the sale of normal ARs, AKs, and numerous semiautomatic firearms go by the wayside, at least for a time.
Rarely is it that a right stripped away is ever returned. We could be witnessing history.
This bill bans the future sale and transfer of new weapons and "large capacity ammunition devices".
After another inevitable mass shooting, the next bill will demand confiscation.
Count on it.

Be prepared.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Jacobs of NY and Fitzpatrick of PA are the republicans.


----------



## Cellcounter10 (10 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> Through some late night chicanery, a 9:30pm committee convened last night.
> They worked toward a rule change to drop the requirement to allow 24 hours of debate before a floor vote on a bill.
> That rule change passed.
> 
> ...


It passed the House and stands a good chance of passing the Senate. It will require a Supreme Court ruling.


----------



## KellyDude (11 mo ago)

They are coming for ALL of our guns... I mean Your guns......


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

μολών λαβέ.
---- "_Come and Take Them_", 480 BCE
---- "_I Will Not Comply_", 2022 ACE


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

As we all know this has nothing to do with the cover story of protecting the public but everything to do with making citizens defenseless against a tyrannical government that is all powerful. Think things are bad now? Wait until those in government house are certain they have nothing to fear from citizens. USA will stand for United Socialist Alliance.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Cellcounter10 said:


> It passed the House and stands a good chance of passing the Senate. It will require a Supreme Court ruling.


It will take 60 votes to pass in the Senate.
I don't see that happening, but if it does, this country is finished.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

rice paddy daddy said:


> It will take 60 votes to pass in the Senate.
> I don't see that happening, but if it does, this country is finished.


Even when it doesn't, that won't mean they'll quit trying.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Even when it doesn't, that won't mean they'll quit trying.


The AWB bill of 2022 (see my thread on the text) is the exact same wording of the AWB of 2011.
The leftists just trot the same bill out in every Congress.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The AWB bill of 2022 (see my thread on the text) is the exact same wording of the AWB of 2011.
> The leftists just trot the same bill out in every Congress.


They added a few things.
One in particular, that isn't getting much attention, is the clause defining a semiautomatic assault weapon as:
_*"Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm but not convert the semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun."*_

This is going to be an ATF wet dream.
Did you get your Glock's trigger bar polished? ASSAULT WEAPON!
Did you buy a drop-in performance trigger for your grandfathered AR? ASSAULT WEAPON!
Did you buy a Gat Crank for fun? ASSAULT WEAPON!
Do your pants have belt loops on them? ASSAULT WEAPON!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> When I know their names, you will too.


Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
and
Chris Jacobs of New York

These are the two RINOs who voted to pass the AWB in the House.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Keep pushin. You can tell they are worried about that big red wave this fall.


----------



## KellyDude (11 mo ago)

It passed the House, Biden will sign it - so we are one short vote away from The Great Gun Grab.
Don't say it can't happen!


----------



## Cellcounter10 (10 mo ago)

rice paddy daddy said:


> It will take 60 votes to pass in the Senate.
> I don't see that happening, but if it does, this country is finished.


I think there are enough turncoats now in the Senate to pass it. It would take a Supreme Court challenge to overturn it.


----------



## MrLemonade (5 mo ago)

rice paddy daddy said:


> It will take 60 votes to pass in the Senate.
> I don't see that happening, but if it does, this country is finished.


Sadly, I think this Demoncrat wet dream AWB will probably be pushed through even if it takes them using the filibuster. Earlier this summer about 12 turncoat RINOs voted in some terrible gun control, including red flags. Whether through threats, bribery, extortion, or filibuster I think the Dems are going to get this "crowning achievement for our safety," passed. 

And I predict civil war ensues and a lot of dead people. This not only will not make us safer, but violence is going to radically increase - in my estimation. And that's probably what Dems ultimately want. They take a happy peaceful dog, chain it to a tree, to beat, starve, kick, and torture the dog in the back yard, and then when it bites them use it as justification that it is violent and needs a shorter chain, less food, and its teeth pulled too. 

There are no trustworthy Dems, and very very few trustworthy Republicans, and anyone that votes for AWB is a traitor to their oath of office and the Constitution, BoR, and this nation, and every veteran that died for same.

Anyone hoping the courts like the SCOTUS to intervene is wishful thinking. We wouldn't be in this mess if the SCOTUS had the stones to intervene in blatant election fraud. Granted the SCOTUS sometimes throws us a bone as in N_Y v. Bruen, _or _DC v. Heller, _or _Chicago v. Illinois_, etc. Guess how many years those cases took, and how many millions of dollars, before favorable decisions? A decade each. The amount of damage, individually, collectively, and to the rights for such things to be resolved is immeasurable. Companies will fold, innocent people go to prison, lives ruined, deaths, further gun control atop gun control atop more gun control, guns confiscated, guns destroyed, innovation stalls, you name it. The courts are unlikely to rescue us...


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

MrLemonade said:


> Sadly, I think this Demoncrat wet dream AWB will probably be pushed through even if it takes them using the filibuster. Earlier this summer about 12 turncoat RINOs voted in some terrible gun control, including red flags. Whether through threats, bribery, extortion, or filibuster I think the Dems are going to get this "crowning achievement for our safety," passed.
> 
> And I predict civil war ensues and a lot of dead people. This not only will not make us safer, but violence is going to radically increase - in my estimation. And that's probably what Dems ultimately want. They take a happy peaceful dog, chain it to a tree, to beat, starve, kick, and torture the dog in the back yard, and then when it bites them use it as justification that it is violent and needs a shorter chain, less food, and its teeth pulled too.
> 
> ...


SCOTUS had already neutered the AWB before the ink was dry.
The ban completely fails the "text, history, and tradition" test used in the Bruen decision. If this is the new precedence test, the AWB can't hold up in any court, and likely won't be enforced by most states as a result.
Justice Thomas knew exactly what he was doing when he penned that holding. I hear that man has trouble sitting down most days... you know, due to his big brass ones he carries with him everywhere.


----------



## MrLemonade (5 mo ago)

Kauboy said:


> SCOTUS had already neutered the AWB before the ink was dry.
> The ban completely fails the "text, history, and tradition" test used in the Bruen decision. If this is the new precedence test, the AWB can't hold up in any court, and likely won't be enforced by most states as a result.
> Justice Thomas knew exactly what he was doing when he penned that holding. I hear that man has trouble sitting down most days... you know, due to his big brass ones he carries with him everywhere.
> View attachment 114811


While I AGREE in theory, court challenges often take millions of dollars, a decade, and depend on the CURRENT court composition.

Lower courts- well they might, or might not- follow precedent and the law. These all wind thru the judicial system. 

What is the Supreme Court composition in 2035? Anyone? It probably does not have brilliant pro-gun Justices Thomas or Alito.... the two strongest Conservative members.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

MrLemonade said:


> While I AGREE in theory, court challenges often take millions of dollars, a decade, and depend on the CURRENT court composition.
> 
> Lower courts- well they might, or might not- follow precedent and the law. These all wind thru the judicial system.
> 
> What is the Supreme Court composition in 2035? Anyone? It probably does not have brilliant pro-gun Justices Thomas or Alito.... the two strongest Conservative members.


If it takes the courts to decide this, yes, the timetable could be a long one.
However, if more states would pass laws forbidding local law enforcement from cooperating with the feds on enforcing unconstitutional laws, we wouldn't need courts to settle anything.
Texas has taken this step, along with a few other states. Politicians come and go, so it would still be up to the people to ensure they keep solid constitutionalists in office.


----------

