Why is the NRA against this proposed law?

[chucklenut]

I saw nothing in Bill 1156 that even remotely suggested this. It was all about restricting, banning, prohibiting honest citizens and turning them into felons if they failed to observe petty state mandated infractions. Get caught with a barrel shroud, pistol grip a magazine of over 10 rounds and go to prison.

It was an "Assault Weapons/High Capacity" weapons ban and stated it so in the first of 13 amendments. I have not read 1155 and it's fifty fracking three amendments.... yet....

Started reading and yes it appears 1155 is the bill to make killing someone with a gun more serious than chopping them into little pieces with a ax. That should deter criminals, right?

agreed

 

[RamRoddoc]

Bill 1155 Unlawful Use of Weapons.

A person commits the the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(1) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or carries any of the long list of weapons described (guns, knifes, clubs, bombs, stun gun, taser, broken glass etc..)

That is exactly what MAIG, VPC and the Brady gang have been pushing for years. Hold the dealer-FFL/person who sold the weapon legally liable. That precedent would effect tort law significantly. Kill someone with your car and the manufacturer, car dealer or private party is now held liable....

1155 does state increased penalties for weapons use but also includes public "weapon" possession/transportation in the increased penalties. It appears as best I can tell is to enforce the total disarmament of the honest citizen, the government and those it dictates are exempt. If you are on your own property, or granted permission of the home/land owner then it doesn't apply. Live in an apartment or any other non-owned land and you are subject to this extremely specific law that appears to discourage any form of weapons carry as determined by the government.

I grow weary of the ass-baggery and am unable to read the 53 amendments but given who and where these originated, I can draw my conclusions early. I believe the NRA is on point on these two laws (and the 66 amendments!) that are dishonestly promoted as "anti-crime bills" in direct response to the McDonald SCOTUS decision.

 

[jcountry]

The only complaint I have about this issue is that the NRA should be better at communicating their concerns on this bill. (They usually do much better than this.)

They should know that the media (yes-even Fox) is gonna try and make them look stupid-so they should be out front on this. They should communicate their concerns clearly. We shouldn't be having to dig in order to figure it out. I had trouble digging through their website to figure out their position.

-That said, I am still proud to be a lifetime NRA member. Love the organization-they do lots of good things (They just could have done better here.)

 

[RamRoddoc]

Quote Originally Posted by MRH View Post

The Bill of Rights states very clearly "the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"...It says nothing about "The right to keep and bear arms, with a permit, shall be subjective"...





Quote Originally Posted by batoncolle View Post

I am glad someone finally said it. Anyone who thinks you need a permit to carry a firearm is a prime candidate for needing a permit to exercise their free speech rights.

These guys not only know what they are talking about. It's in their hearts as well.

If an individual has to obtain government permission, it then it no longer remains a right.....