-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
What if HR.8 Passes
- Thread starter Kodiak42
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hr8 legal odt private sales
The premise of the "either or" OP question was deeply flawed to begin with. We SHOULD be fighting this incursion against the rights affirmed to us by the Second Amendment, period. NO limits, no concessions, no retreat. Crap like this was tried with voting (poll taxes, literacy tests, property ownership) and leftists used our Constitution and got all that declared unconstitutional. So should it be with this crap.
So most law abiding citizens with carry permits have already 'complied' with the mandatory government intrusion into our backgrounds and were forced to pay an unconstitutional tax to do so. So I would think a CCW holder to CCW holder transfer of an item should be allowed as the said "UBC" has already been done and 'paid" for....right ? Obviously this isn't the libs agenda. Duh.
Registration=database=confiscation=(__________________ ?) feel free to fill in the blank.
Registration=database=confiscation=(__________________ ?) feel free to fill in the blank.
Excellent point. If "they" (the disgusting reprobate libturds) changed the language to exclude the FFL conducted BackCheck for an excbabve between two CCw holders? I'd believe "they" were actually trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Otherwise they can STFU and pound sand.
They need to do that in general. Their entire platform is rights for me but not for thee, and thinly vailed behind this curtain of a false moral high ground.
The part about all these 'universal' background checks bills that is truly frightening is they way they define a transfer.
Even here among knowledgeable gun owners we forget that previous bills would make it illegal to have a house-sitter in your residence for more than a week and a day if there were guns present. Even if the sitter had no access to them. This bill would do the same.
It looks like they have expanded the transferable 'bubble' to include nieces and nephews now, and step-kids, but that was also a crime in the previous (2013) bill.
They also exempt temporary transfers at shooting ranges, but if you are out shooting with some friends on the back 40, you're still criminals if you shoot each other's firearms. That exemption is only valid if a judge considers your hayfield "a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting".
And of course then there the weasel words, as usual, giving the US Atty. General the power to create any regulations around this they want except for capping fees or limiting states from passing their own, even worse laws.
The bill is fairly short and straight-forward, and we all should have read it by now.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text
Even here among knowledgeable gun owners we forget that previous bills would make it illegal to have a house-sitter in your residence for more than a week and a day if there were guns present. Even if the sitter had no access to them. This bill would do the same.
It looks like they have expanded the transferable 'bubble' to include nieces and nephews now, and step-kids, but that was also a crime in the previous (2013) bill.
They also exempt temporary transfers at shooting ranges, but if you are out shooting with some friends on the back 40, you're still criminals if you shoot each other's firearms. That exemption is only valid if a judge considers your hayfield "a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting".
And of course then there the weasel words, as usual, giving the US Atty. General the power to create any regulations around this they want except for capping fees or limiting states from passing their own, even worse laws.
The bill is fairly short and straight-forward, and we all should have read it by now.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text
As I read HR8, temporary transfers are ok while the owner is present. Basically, you can hand someone a gun and it's ok while you're standing there. That would make backyard target practice with friends ok.
Where is the part about house sitters?
Don't get me wrong, the law is absolutely terrible, just trying to understand the details.
Yes, you are correct there. That was a change from the 2013 bill. They added that as long as you are in the presence of the actual owner it's excepted in this one. Just don't run to the store or go to the bathroom.
As for the house-sitter scenario, it was specified in the 2013 bill that a transfer would have taken place if a person was left with firearm for more than a week. Thus if you left a house-sitter in your place for a week and a day it was considered a 'transfer' even if they had no access to it.
In this bill no time limit is specified, meaning it'll be up to the Atty. General on how long you can leave a firearm with someone before it's considered a 'transfer'.
There is no exception though for the situation above, so unless that is built into the regulations as well that situation could be just as valid for this bill as it was back in 2013.
In fact that's one very scary thing about this bill. The reason it's so short and simple compared to the 2013 bill is because they are purposely keeping it as vague as possible.
This means that the US Atty. General will have enormous latitude in creating regulations, and can delegate that power, as is typically done, to the ATF.
You will notice there aren't even penalties specified, or even whether it's a misdemeanor charge or a felony to violate it. The Atty. General can make them up and change them at will.
In reality it's a blank check to the executive branch to do almost anything they want, and keep changing the rules at-will.
Absodamnlutely !!
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/YJB3B5PE5FGFBE5RBEKZBSLYEE.png)
