HR 4269

We will try to post current legislative bills that relate to Gun Control issues in this Forum. This includes bills in the Utah Legislature and U.S. Congress.

HR 4269

Postby jktseug » Sun 27 Dec 2015 10:50 am

"Don't handicap your children by making their lives easy."
"There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe."
Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
jktseug
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed 09 May 2012 3:42 pm

Re: HR 4269

Postby Cinhil » Sun 27 Dec 2015 2:24 pm




This is frighteningly sick!
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is not being abused today!

Even Knights had "Modern" weapons!

'Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes' ("Who watches the watchmen?”)."
User avatar
Cinhil
Sniper
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri 24 Jun 2005 1:31 am

Re: HR 4269

Postby sypher » Sun 27 Dec 2015 4:20 pm

From my quick perusal, I agree. I doubt it will go anywhere, but just the same, it wouldn't hurt to contact your respective representatives and let them know how you feel about it!
Brian

NRA RSO
sypher
Marksman
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu 01 Mar 2012 7:11 pm
Location: Grand Forks County

Re: HR 4269

Postby DaKnife » Sun 27 Dec 2015 10:05 pm

It'll never get out of committee. Just the faithful Democratic congress critters submitting bills they know have zero chance of passing so they can go back to their voters next year and say, "See I tried to do something but the evil Republicans were paid off by the Terrorists at the NRA to block it."
SPOOOOOOON!!!

WARNING: This comment may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, in every other state it may increase intelligence and knowledge.
User avatar
DaKnife
Sniper
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:16 pm
Location: Riverdale

Re: HR 4269

Postby RustyShackleford » Sun 27 Dec 2015 11:15 pm

the problem is, this very well could slip into a conglomerate bill that would actually be voted for by the majority of (R) congress that as a rule, does not read entire bills. If this were to be slipped into a bill containing Increases in Defense spending (demanded by defense contractor donors) Republicans (and Democrats) representing their donors (not the people) would vote for this.

This is why we have so much bad laws and a huge deficit. You put enough sugar on a turd, and they will pass it.
If you consider yourself an American, and are not yet on a government watchlist...You're Not Trying.
User avatar
RustyShackleford
Sniper
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009 8:55 am
Location: St. George UT

Re: HR 4269

Postby jfwright1955 » Mon 28 Dec 2015 8:37 am

RustyShackleford wrote:the problem is, this very well could slip into a conglomerate bill that would actually be voted for by the majority of (R) congress that as a rule, does not read entire bills. If this were to be slipped into a bill containing Increases in Defense spending (demanded by defense contractor donors) Republicans (and Democrats) representing their donors (not the people) would vote for this.

This is why we have so much bad laws and a huge deficit. You put enough sugar on a turd, and they will pass it.


:agree:
John
NRA RSO
No one should make decisions for us when it comes to guns and gun carry. If we do things we're not comfortable with because someone told us it's 'right' it becomes a distraction in an event where clarity and simplicity is needed.
User avatar
jfwright1955
Sniper
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun 13 Jan 2013 9:15 am
Location: Marana, AZ

Re: HR 4269

Postby D-FIN » Wed 30 Dec 2015 11:53 am

There a specific process required to "change" an amendment and this is not it. So the parts about changing the wording of the 2A is not likely to happen.
You can't win the sheep over to your side if your always showing them your fangs.

NRA RSO
D-FIN
Sniper
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat 29 Dec 2012 8:39 pm


Return to Utah & Federal Bills For or Against Gun Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests