• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dems introduce HR Bill 5717 severely attacking 2nd Amendment rights

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,879
845
126
Back on January 30, Democratic backed H.R. 5717: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 was introduced attacking 2nd Amendments rights maybe more severely than ever.

I'm having trouble finding stories on this except from pro-gun websites, so keep that in mind if you visit the links I'm posting. And please post if you find a story from a mainstream media source.

Personally, I can't believe this wouldn't be struck down as unconstitutional pretty damn quick. If you tried to institute these same requirements for voting, exercising free speech, or any other constitutional right, people would rightly freak out as it would spell the end of our relatively free society.

So, now people understand why gun owners don't believe it when we hear the words "we don't want to ban all guns, stop overreacting." No, dems want to maintain gun rights for those who are wealthy enough to jump through the hoops to get one. And who are well place enough to have their licences and permits approved.

Elitism at it's finest.
---------------------------------------------
"Title I creates a Federal license for guns and for ammunition. In other words, you will have to be licensed in order to own a firearm or bullets.

Title II creates “universal background checks” and requires a 7 day waiting period as well as a required reporting of any denials.

Title III requires a person to be 21 years of age to possess or purchase a firearm, unless they are a member of the US military or are on a ranch or farm. Those who commit misdemeanor domestic violations will now be barred from firearms purchase or possession. Secure gun storage and/or gun lock devices will be required for all gun owners of both handguns and rifles…and the rules for them are stringent. It expands the gun free zones for ALL schools and colleges, flying in the face of state laws that have removed the gun free zone designations.

Title IV establishes grants for states that pass red flag laws and creates a Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order.

Title V creates a ban on nearly all semi-automatic rifles and any large magazines, as well as “ghost guns.” There is a prohibition on possession of suppressors and other accessories. It also bans home builds for any weapons.

Title VI prohibits the sale of multiple firearms, limiting each person to one firearm per month.

Title VII requires dealers to keep records of firearms sales and institute “security” requirements.

Title VIII increased the excise tax on firearms to 30% and ammunition to 50%.

Title IX creates a community grant program for gun violence intervention, and funds for research."
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
26,446
5,874
136
So what you are saying is that you have no fucking clue how our government works let alone how congress works and how a bill becomes a law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,879
845
126
So what you are saying is that you have no fucking clue how our government works let alone how congress works and how a bill becomes a law.
I've watched my share of Schoolhouse Rock. It starts in committee, then has to be passed by both the house and congress then has to be signed by the president to become law. That's the basic jist of it.

Or, if I've got it wrong, please educate me, oh enlightened one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
66,627
14,102
136
I have to say without reading this bill if they are actually trying to ban guns that’s a very smart bill.

It’s just math, no reason to be mad at math.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
26,446
5,874
136
Good then you’d also know that way less than 10% of bills actually become law.

Perhaps you should find something else to waste your time on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,879
845
126
Good then you’d also know that way less than 10% of bills actually become law.

Perhaps you should find something else to waste your time on.
When should I waste my time on it? When would you waste your time on it if it were a bill attacking the right to vote? Until it came up for a vote? After it passed and was on the president's desk? Is it ever too early to point out attempted tyranny. I understand it is unlikely to pass, but I'm not willing to bank on it.

Plus, it's a good indicator of what many Dems actually want, and a good indicator of how much we can trust their claims that all they want to ban is "military style weapons."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Atreus21

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
21,944
6,552
136
When should I waste my time on it? When would you waste your time on it if it were a bill attacking the right to vote? Until it came up for a vote? After it passed and was on the president's desk? Is it ever too early to point out attempted tyranny. I understand it is unlikely to pass, but I'm not willing to bank on it.

Plus, it's a good indicator of what many Dems actually want, and a good indicator of how much we can trust their claims that all they want to ban is "military style weapons."
How many of your guns did you lose when Obama was in office?

I'm shocked 2A includes the right to sell arms. Oh the horrors you can only sell 1 gun/month instead of 20. Poor you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
11,310
1,198
126
it doesn't appear to prevent anyone from actually buying a pistol, shotgun, or rifle that isn't a semi-auto. no 2nd amendment violation found.

btw, why are you just now creating a post for something two months old, not to mention that we at the beginning of a pandemic when arms and ammo sales are through the roof?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
65,527
2,548
126
Gun lovers like myself have to face the fact that allowing guns to remain legal means a huge number of people will die from gun violence. My guess is that most pro gun people are not really willing to face the fact that their own egotistical desires are more important to them than other people's lives.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
73,375
7,235
126
I get the democrats have to push their agenda. I don't care. They keep failing when it comes to outright bans cuz most of the House and Senate doesn't actually want that. Also even if they some how pass a law confiscating weapons they will never be able to actually do it.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
26,100
746
126
"shall not be infringed" is not synonymous with "cannot be regulated".

whether those laws - even if passed - would pass judicial scrutiny is another story.

title1 conservative court fails this, liberal court upholds
title2 conservative court fails this, liberal court upholds
title3 conservative court fails this, liberal court upholds
title4 would probably survive
title5 conservative court fails this, liberal court upholds
title6 would probably survive
title7 is nothing new except for maybe security requirements. i believe FFAs have to keep records currently.
title8 would survive
title9 would survive

now i doubt a conservative majority court would rule in favor of this law, but on the surface there doesn't seem to be anything overtly unconstitutional about it. congress banned fully automatic weapons for all practical purposes. Heller is probably what would stand in the way of a semi-auto ban
IMO, if you want to ban anything, ban handguns. no, they aren't used in mass shooting events typically, but they are easily concealable and responsible for the majority of firearm homicides in the US. or, if you do want to ban semi-auto rifles, ban all semi-auto firearms period (cause the next would-be mass shooter would just use a semi-auto pistol instead of a rifle)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

zzyzxroad

Golden Member
Jan 29, 2017
1,231
568
106
Back on January 30, Democratic backed H.R. 5717: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 was introduced attacking 2nd Amendments rights maybe more severely than ever.

I'm having trouble finding stories on this except from pro-gun websites, so keep that in mind if you visit the links I'm posting. And please post if you find a story from a mainstream media source.

Personally, I can't believe this wouldn't be struck down as unconstitutional pretty damn quick. If you tried to institute these same requirements for voting, exercising free speech, or any other constitutional right, people would rightly freak out as it would spell the end of our relatively free society.

So, now people understand why gun owners don't believe it when we hear the words "we don't want to ban all guns, stop overreacting." No, dems want to maintain gun rights for those who are wealthy enough to jump through the hoops to get one. And who are well place enough to have their licences and permits approved.

Elitism at it's finest.
---------------------------------------------
"Title I creates a Federal license for guns and for ammunition. In other words, you will have to be licensed in order to own a firearm or bullets.
Title II creates “universal background checks” and requires a 7 day waiting period as well as a required reporting of any denials.
Title III requires a person to be 21 years of age to possess or purchase a firearm, unless they are a member of the US military or are on a ranch or farm. Those who commit misdemeanor domestic violations will now be barred from firearms purchase or possession. Secure gun storage and/or gun lock devices will be required for all gun owners of both handguns and rifles…and the rules for them are stringent. It expands the gun free zones for ALL schools and colleges, flying in the face of state laws that have removed the gun free zone designations.
Title IV establishes grants for states that pass red flag laws and creates a Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order.
Title V creates a ban on nearly all semi-automatic rifles and any large magazines, as well as “ghost guns.” There is a prohibition on possession of suppressors and other accessories. It also bans home builds for any weapons.
Title VI prohibits the sale of multiple firearms, limiting each person to one firearm per month.
Title VII requires dealers to keep records of firearms sales and institute “security” requirements.
Title VIII increased the excise tax on firearms to 30% and ammunition to 50%.
Title IX creates a community grant program for gun violence intervention, and funds for research."
Have you read H.R.5717?
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
73,375
7,235
126
Have you read H.R.5717?
It looks like he just read that website, which is obviously biased. The problem with gun issues is you have to really look to find an unbiased website. Especially when it comes to new bills.

Actual Bill

Oh, and actually I support mandatory training. But I would make it clear that 18 year olds can buy long arms and 21 year olds can buy hand guns. The way that bill is written, guns would exclusively be the province of 21 year olds, and thats not great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burpo

DaaQ

Member
Dec 8, 2018
125
47
61
Back on January 30, Democratic backed H.R. 5717: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 was introduced attacking 2nd Amendments rights maybe more severely than ever.

I'm having trouble finding stories on this except from pro-gun websites, so keep that in mind if you visit the links I'm posting. And please post if you find a story from a mainstream media source.

Personally, I can't believe this wouldn't be struck down as unconstitutional pretty damn quick. If you tried to institute these same requirements for voting, exercising free speech, or any other constitutional right, people would rightly freak out as it would spell the end of our relatively free society.

So, now people understand why gun owners don't believe it when we hear the words "we don't want to ban all guns, stop overreacting." No, dems want to maintain gun rights for those who are wealthy enough to jump through the hoops to get one. And who are well place enough to have their licences and permits approved.

Elitism at it's finest.
---------------------------------------------
"Title I creates a Federal license for guns and for ammunition. In other words, you will have to be licensed in order to own a firearm or bullets.
Title II creates “universal background checks” and requires a 7 day waiting period as well as a required reporting of any denials.
Title III requires a person to be 21 years of age to possess or purchase a firearm, unless they are a member of the US military or are on a ranch or farm. Those who commit misdemeanor domestic violations will now be barred from firearms purchase or possession. Secure gun storage and/or gun lock devices will be required for all gun owners of both handguns and rifles…and the rules for them are stringent. It expands the gun free zones for ALL schools and colleges, flying in the face of state laws that have removed the gun free zone designations.
Title IV establishes grants for states that pass red flag laws and creates a Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order.
Title V creates a ban on nearly all semi-automatic rifles and any large magazines, as well as “ghost guns.” There is a prohibition on possession of suppressors and other accessories. It also bans home builds for any weapons.
Title VI prohibits the sale of multiple firearms, limiting each person to one firearm per month.
Title VII requires dealers to keep records of firearms sales and institute “security” requirements.
Title VIII increased the excise tax on firearms to 30% and ammunition to 50%.
Title IX creates a community grant program for gun violence intervention, and funds for research."
Hi, I admit I didn't read the whole bill, I did read the proposed bill and some of the amendments.

I'm not being snarky here in advance.

Could you explain what is attacking 2a rights more severely then ever and what hoops you need to be wealthy to get through, to get approved for license?
I'm seriously asking, because what I did read, I didn't get the same interpretation as you did, I think.

Edit: I read from op's link.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alien42

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,879
845
126
Can we institute a test to vote? Require a licence? If the answer is no then we can't require one for 2A gun rights unless you have committed a crime and lost those constitutional rights. Change the constitution or crap like proposed bill 5717 is unconstitutional.

I don't know why you guys think some constitutional rights are okay to fuck with and others a sacred. If you've got the votes and political will to change the constitution then go for it. Otherwise, respect ALL our constitutional rights.

EDIT: and if the goal is to reduce illegal gun violence, what sick/evil/criminal planning on committing murder is going to decide not to because he has to resort to illegal sources to obtain his weapon? The main purpose of this bill is to be a deterrent to lawful citizens obtaining lawful firearms for lawful purposes.
 
Last edited:

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
11,310
1,198
126
Can we institute a test to vote? Require a licence? If the answer is no then we can't require one for 2A gun rights unless you have committed a crime and lost those constitutional rights. Change the constitution or crap like proposed bill 5717 is unconstitutional.

I don't know why you guys think some constitutional rights are okay to fuck with and others a sacred. If you've got the votes and political will to change the constitution then go for it. Otherwise, respect ALL our constitutional rights.

EDIT: and if the goal is to reduce illegal gun violence, what sick/evil/criminal planning on committing murder is going to decide not to because he has to resort to illegal sources to obtain his weapon? The main purpose of this bill is to be a deterrent to lawful citizens obtaining lawful firearms for lawful purposes.
voting and the 2nd amendment are like apples and oranges. when you begin with such utter nonsense, the rest is just babble.

reality is that you can still have your pistols, shotguns and non-assault rifles with this legislation.

care to respond to my original post?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,879
845
126
Hi, I admit I didn't read the whole bill, I did read the proposed bill and some of the amendments.

I'm not being snarky here in advance.

Could you explain what is attacking 2a rights more severely then ever and what hoops you need to be wealthy to get through, to get approved for license?
I'm seriously asking, because what I did read, I didn't get the same interpretation as you did, I think.

Edit: I read from op's link.
If it's overly burdensome to expect voters to produce a state issued photo ID card to prove their identity when they vote (which I agree it is, but that's not the point) then how can it be fine to expect what this bill proposed be required for a citizen to practice their 2A rights? The bill adds burdensome taxes, classes and licencing to try and discourage the financial disadvantages from owning guns or even buying ammo for them.

Again, if we tried this with any other constitutional right folks would shit.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
30,662
1,774
126
Can we institute a test to vote? Require a licence? If the answer is no then we can't require one for 2A gun rights unless you have committed a crime and lost those constitutional rights. Change the constitution or crap like proposed bill 5717 is unconstitutional.

I don't know why you guys think some constitutional rights are okay to fuck with and others a sacred. If you've got the votes and political will to change the constitution then go for it. Otherwise, respect ALL our constitutional rights.

EDIT: and if the goal is to reduce illegal gun violence, what sick/evil/criminal planning on committing murder is going to decide not to because he has to resort to illegal sources to obtain his weapon? The main purpose of this bill is to be a deterrent to lawful citizens obtaining lawful firearms for lawful purposes.
you are way in over your head! From the sound of your whimpering it sounds like you did not understand what you claim to have read!
Also for your information -- there is nothing unconstitutional about redefining what 2A actually means!
You can`t be against people needing a license to carry or own a gun....that is just common sense! After all in order to drive a car you need to be licensed!
I think what you are doing in criminal by crying foul when there is nothing to cry foul about....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
11,310
1,198
126
you can't directly kill anyone with a vote but you can kill dozens with a single assault rifle.

apples and oranges, this thread is garbage.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,879
845
126
voting and the 2nd amendment are like apples and oranges. when you begin with such utter nonsense, the rest is just babble.

reality is that you can still have your pistols, shotguns and non-assault rifles with this legislation.

care to respond to my original post?
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction ...

But I guess some rights guaranteed by the Constitution are apples while others are oranges.

Rights cease to be rights when the government requires you pay extra taxes, apply for licencing, take classes and such before you can enjoy them. Constitutional rights can only be suspended if you've done something and been found guilty in a court of law to lose that right.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
30,662
1,774
126
The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction ...

But I guess some rights guaranteed by the Constitution are apples while others are oranges.

Rights cease to be rights when the government requires you pay extra taxes, apply for licencing, take classes and such before you can enjoy them. Constitutional rights can only be suspended if you've done something and been found guilty in a court of law to lose that right.
You are being ridiculous! The Government is allowed to regulate weapons such as gun and rifles...etc
"shall not be infringed" is not synonymous with "cannot be regulated".
 

mect

Golden Member
Jan 5, 2004
1,904
755
136
Can we institute a test to vote? Require a licence? If the answer is no then we can't require one for 2A gun rights unless you have committed a crime and lost those constitutional rights. Change the constitution or crap like proposed bill 5717 is unconstitutional.

I don't know why you guys think some constitutional rights are okay to fuck with and others a sacred. If you've got the votes and political will to change the constitution then go for it. Otherwise, respect ALL our constitutional rights.

EDIT: and if the goal is to reduce illegal gun violence, what sick/evil/criminal planning on committing murder is going to decide not to because he has to resort to illegal sources to obtain his weapon? The main purpose of this bill is to be a deterrent to lawful citizens obtaining lawful firearms for lawful purposes.
This is nonsense. The constitution explicitly explains under what circumstances the right to vote can be removed, and clearly states that these are the only reasons it can be removed. It doesn't do that for the second amendment.

Additionally, the reason some constitutional rights should be protected over others is because some are better for society than others. The right to vote is clearly important for a democratic society. The right to own firearms is not. The second amendment was originally influenced by the early need in this country for European settlers to kill native Americans, keep slaves in check, and maintain a militia in case Great Britain attacked since we had no standing army at the time. None of those are particularly relevant any more.

And the purpose is to decrease the overall number of firearms in society because that will lead to a decrease in gun violence. A significant portion of gun violence is not premeditated. It is an act of passion. If there is a gun in the household, this can lead to a person being dead instead of just injured. Additionally, there are all the accidental shootings from firearms that aren't properly secured.

I'm not opposed to guns. I have a couple myself. But American's obsession with them is ridiculous.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY