But magazines that face the bullet forwards will not be subject to the ban? Or is it the opposite?

Hat Tip GaryE

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CfE9gGxtqsJ/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Go call your Senators now!

Read the text for yourself (PDF warning)“Bipartison Safer Communities act”

Quick call to 202-224-3121 is the US Capitol switch board.

Go call your representatives as well.

UPDATE: Reading that bill is difficult and not very helpful. Instead of giving us the final text of the different bills it is full of delete this, insert that language. This is how most bills actual are. In order to know what it actually does you have to see the marked up bill.

I’m leaving this link to a redstate.com article where they talk about what others are saying is in the bill:
BREAKING: Text of Senate Gun Bill Released, and Your Rights Are Dangling by a Thread

https://videos.gunfreezone.net/videos/watch/70d2d687-180d-4649-97c5-9efe0036f1f4

What is the lesson here? He got a deadly wound BUT took him 29 seconds to get the memo. And he kept shooting at the security guard for 14 more seconds after being shot.

Never stop and admire your handiwork ’cause the sumbitch can still shoot back and kill you. Move and seek cover.

In a poll of many eligible voters of these United States it was decided to ratify the Constitution of these United States and to adopt the 10 amendments to the Constitution now known as the Bill of Rights.

Part of the constitution established the form of government, methods of changing the Constitution, electing representatives and three branches of the government.

The Legislative branch, to create laws and pass budgets.
The Executive branch, to fulfil the requirements of the laws of these United States.
The Judicial branch, to pass judgement based on the laws of the land.

These three equal branches of government are created to be in conflict with each other and to be a stop on the power of each other. As President Andrew Jackson famously said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” The executive branch could just fail to enforce a judicial decision.

Going back to Schoolhouse Rock we know that Congress, as the legislature creates bills which can become law.

There is really nothing to stop a Senator or Representative from proposing laws that are in conflict with other laws. Sometimes this is on purpose, the law removes or changes some other law for example.

Congress is suppose to represent the will of the people they represent and the states they represent. If they are using polling to determine the will of the people, that’s ok. We actually have official polling every year. We vote for new representatives and other actions where the peoples voice is directly heard.

When Congress passes and the President signs a bill into law it is not actually checked to see if it is legal. When the bill is introduced it is suppose to state the clause under the Constitution that allows for the bill but often that is just noise.

The important point is a law is not required to be Constitutional when passed. When it goes into effect it is assumed to be “legal” until proven otherwise.

Which takes us to the point of this article.

The Supreme Court of these United States is the final arbitrator on what is and is not Constitutional. Their job is to examine the laws as written to determine if the law is legal and what limits there might be on the law. Or on whether a law was properly applied or on whether an individuals rights were denied to them.

Thus the following is reasonable rhetoric from a legislator:

A POLITICO/Morning Consult poll out this morning shows that Americans overwhelmingly favor common-sense legislation to address gun violence.

• 88% of Americans support requiring background checks on all gun sales.
  • In 2021, House Democrats passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which would require background checks on all gun sales.
  • House Democrats also passed H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021, which would close the ‘Charleston Loophole’ and work to prevent firearms from reaching the hands of prohibited gun owners.
• 84% of Americans support preventing sales of all firearms to people reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider.
  • During the first week of the June work period, the House will take up legislation to enact a national Red Flag law that would prevent those who pose a threat to themselves or others from being able to legally possess a firearm.

Senate Republicans should listen to the American people and work with Democrats on common-sense gun legislation that will take important steps towards ending gun violence in America.
— Polls show Americans want action on common-sense gun legislation

The issue is that so many liberals on the court and in the media are pushing the Supreme court to issue opinions based on polls rather than the law founded on the Constitution.

The court isn’t there to issue opinions based on what the people want.

The court is there to issue opinions based on the law.

If the people want to get a different result, they have to change the law. And that is their problem.

As much as the liberals and gun rights infringers want to ban or restrict firearm ownership they can’t. They intend to write many bills and create many laws that in the end will be found unconstitutional. That won’t stop them. They know it will take years for the courts to strike down whatever they pass today.

They think that they can tax firearm ownership out of existence. They have polls that say they can. But poll taxes are unconstitutional. That likely means that firearm taxes will be found unconstitutional at some point.

They think that they can expand “sensitive locations” to encompass so many places that it is impossible to travel with a firearm. If a bar is defined as a sensitive location as well as a bubble 50 yards in radius that would put most cities and towns off limits. I doubt you could walk through any part of NYC that isn’t within 50 yards (or 100 yards) of a bar.

This is the type of polling that is shouted from the tree tops:

It is also worth noting that gun laws are already more representative of gun lobby clout than the will of the people. Polls show that over 90% of Americans support background checks on all gun sales, 84% want safety education required before first-time gun purchases, and 75% support a 30-day waiting period for gun purchases. Majorities want all private guns registered, a license required for purchases, and assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines banned. Yet none of these stances is the law of the land. Concealed carry laws are also not reflective of public will. About 70% of Americans choose not to own a gun at all, much less carry one in public. Polls show only 12% to 22% support for allowing concealed carry without a permit.
— Alternate Facts, Dueling Realities, and the Second Amendment: On NYSRPA v. Bruen

For a better article on the task of the Supreme Court, go read: Once Again: It Is Not the Supreme Court’s Job to Follow ‘Majority Public Opinion’

When some media person or politician is screaming about some loophole that is allowing bad things to happen, know that what they actually mean is that somebody is following the law and they don’t like the results.

For years we’ve been hearing about the “gun show loophole”. What is the gun show loophole? It means that people that are not FFLs because they don’t aren’t in the business of buying and selling firearms sold firearms at or near a gunshow.

We know that an FFL is required to do all the required background checks, Federal 4473 and whatever the state requires, in order to transfer a firearm. It doesn’t matter if they are doing it at their place of business or at their home or in a convention center, if they are transferring a firearm they have to do the background checks.

Imagine that your father passed and in his will he gave you his collection of firearms. You go to the LGS to sell the entire collection and gives you a lowball offer. Knowing there is a gunshow coming up you determine to sell them yourself. You pay the table feed and show up with your fathers collection of firearms.

At this point you are in an interesting position. Are you in the business of selling firearms? If you are then you need an FFL. If you aren’t then you don’t and can sell to anybody with just a handshake and an exchange of cash. This is how the public thinks gun shows work. The reality is that most gun shows won’t let you do private sales on premises just to remove any chance of a bad sale.

The gun show loophole is a dead issue. The truth has gotten out and people push back so hard that it is only used by the most extreme gun infringers.

The new loophole is the “boyfriend loophole”. This is another one of those made up problems. The issue revolves around removing second amendment rights from people via restraining orders.

Qualifying Restraining Orders: Under 18 U.S.C. 922, firearms may not be sold to or received by persons subject to a court order that: (A) was issued after a hearing which the person received actual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. An “intimate partner” of a person is: the spouse or former spouse of the person, the parent of a child of the person, or an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the person.

— Form 4473 instructions

What this means is that if my neighbor takes gets a restraining order against me, I get to keep my firearms. On the other hand, if my ex-wife of 30 years decides to take out a restraining order I lose my rights to own firearms.

So the loophole in question is the “boyfriend relationship.” If some guy is dating and gets violent. The victim can get a restraining order. That restraining order would not result in the guy losing his firearms.

The concern for the gun rights infringers is the guy using his firearms to harm the victim. So they want to extend the definition of “intimate partner” to include dating. Under this model the guy would lose access to his firearms saving the victim from this guys confiscated firearms.

The issue being argued in the Senate is two fold. The first is what is a dating partner and the second is how does he get his rights back.

Under the guns right infringing model, a guy can take a girl to dinner and a movie. He decides she is to crazy to even dip his wick. She gets upset that he is rejecting her so gets a restraining order. Dude that made the mistake of having dinner with crazy girl now loses his second amendment rights.

The Senate is arguing about how does the guy get his rights back.

Federal law currently only bars people from purchasing a firearm if they are convicted of domestic violence while:

• Living with their partner
• Married to their partner
• Have a child with their partner

Democratic lawmakers have long sought to expand the law to extend that coverage to dating partners, convicted stalkers and any individual under a protective order. But as of now, it doesn’t apply to other types of dating partners, hence the label “boyfriend loophole.”
— Here’s what you need to know about the ‘boyfriend loophole’ holding up gun safety negotiations

To give some perspective to this consider this reality. There are a number of people out there that are prohibited persons because of domestic violence misdemeanors that should not be prohibited. What happened was that they were accused of a bunch of stuff and the lawyers got together and offered a plea deal. If they would plead guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence then all the rest of the charges would be dropped and they would be let of with a slap on the wrist.

In this age of lawfair this is a good deal. Having a lawyer represent you in court is expensive. Since the slap on the wrist is known in advance it is a good deal for the accused. Years later the federal government changes the definition of prohibited person to include domestic violence misdemeanors and suddenly they lose their rights.

Fighting the expansion of who is a prohibited person is an important battle.

Seen in the social webs:

"My AR15 is not a weapon of war. But if you keep trying to take it away or make me a criminal, it will become one."

Sent by angry cybernetic gnomes