House Bill HR 127: Insane Gun registration and Onerous requirements

[5pins]

Anyone catch the part about your neighbor being able to snoop on you?

ACCESS.—The Attorney General shall make the contents of the database accessible to all members of the public

[mtnbkr]

track this bill on Congress.gov

Looks like there aren't any co-sponsors yet. I predict it will die in committee

I'm not worried as much about this specific bill as much as I am about the mindset it represents.

Also, there was a lot of talk about Trump's negotiating style when he first entered office, to the point that he said an outrageous thing to get your attention and set expectations, but negotiated down from that stance. So, this could be that initial outrageous thing and an attempt to get us to accept elements such as registration and training requirements because we get to "win" on the scarier stuff (psych evals and public databases).

Chris

[WobblyPossum]

I get that. The part I find confusing is that it's in direct conflict with existing law, but unless I missed it (and I may well have), it doesn't contain a section that says "repeals USC whatever.whatever which prohibits the ATF from creating a registry." If there are two laws simultaneously on the books which directly conflict in that way (ATF can't do thing X vs ATF *must* do thing X), which one wins?

When I read the linked bill I saw a section addressing the law against creating a database of gun owners. The bill addresses this conflict by repealing text from that law.

[LittleLebowski]

I legitimately just paid $25 for site supporter (a few days ago it auto-drafted) but somehow lost access to the politics forum. I thought it had been deleted.

You’re fixed, sorry about that. It’s not me, it’s not you, it was PayPal.

[olstyn]

When I read the linked bill I saw a section addressing the law against creating a database of gun owners. The bill addresses this conflict by repealing text from that law.

Fair enough. I missed it then. Thanks for the correction.

[olstyn]

Anyone catch the part about your neighbor being able to snoop on you?

That is terrifying. "So let's just create a law that tells criminals who want to steal guns exactly where all of the best ones are."

[Borderland]

There have been instances in the past where a sheriff made public the personal information of people with a license to carry concealed. It's not like it hasn't happened or that it won't happen again. Kamala Harris made a name for herself as a prosecutor in a state where access to public records, including permits, is legal. I'm sure she will be beating the drum for passage of the same type of legislation in congress.....and she gets to vote in the senate to break a tie.



https://www.actionnewsnow.com/conten...567838261.html

[olstyn]

Kamala Harris made a name for herself as a prosecutor in a state where access to public records, including permits, is legal. I'm sure she will be beating the drum for passage of the same type of legislation in congress.....and she gets to vote in the senate to break a tie. [/url]

"Has happened before" != "Is acceptable"

[Borderland]

"Has happened before" != "Is acceptable"

I think most people don't pay a lot of attention to this, but they should.

[Shotgun]

That really isn't how the SC works. Each case is considered on it merits as a constitutional issue and each SC justice looks at each case based on that. They also look at how the lower courts ruled to see if they have some disagreement with the ruling. They really don't break cases down by conservative or liberal politics or who appointed them to do their bidding.

I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you because in the end all they do is interpret the constitution. It means lots of different things, even to a SC justice.

Well, no, what I said originally is how SCOTUS often works, especially on highly charged political issues. To say that the conservative or liberal leanings of the various justices do not play a role in which cases SCOTUS accepts is incorrect. It took a very short internet search to find a specialist in American constitutional law saying the very thing I said: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-it-be/613105/

_____
So what explains the Court’s refusal to hear another Second Amendment case? Only the justices can be certain, but one thing we do know is that the Court’s decision to take a case requires the agreement of only four justices. And we also know that four justices (Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh) are all on record saying that the Court should take a Second Amendment case and address the very unanswered questions posed by the cases it turned away today. Those justices could have forced the Court to take one of them, but they didn’t—and one suspects that’s because of John Roberts.

If the four conservatives thought Roberts would side with them, they would certainly have accepted one of the 10 cases. They didn’t, which could well mean that they were not confident of Roberts’s support. Surely they have a much better sense than Court watchers do about how Roberts views the Second Amendment, given their internal discussions regarding the New York case and the many petitions over the years in cases on the right to bear arms.
_____

The addition of Amy Coney Barrett changes that dynamic in favor of SCOTUS finally accepting another 2nd Amendment case. There is reason for proponents of the right to keep and bear arms to be optimistic.