U.S. Airsoft handgun ban & more

[Riddick]

To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban toys which in size, shape, or overall appearance resemble real handguns. (Introduced in House)


here's the linky: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.428:

secondary (real steel):

The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007," H.R.256 ( http://tinyurl.com/3brx43 ) would raise the minimum age for the ownership of a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21. In addition, children under 18 attending a gun show must be accompanied by an adult at all times. Worse, it calls for fines and jailtime if a child gets a hold of your firearm and uses it to cause death or serious bodily injury, if you "recklessly disregarded the risk" that a child could access your firearm.

**The way I read this is now a child is defined as someone less than the age of 21 for the semi-auto rifle issue...

[mmmsammichmaker]

bleeding perfect. This angers me like not alot can.

[Catch22]

I can't see this passing but if it does. It's nice to know that my GBB airsoft replica handgun is a training device and not a toy.

Edit: that second one needs to be chucked out now!

bleeding Dems.... Out to save Americans from themselves. Creating a bleeding nanny state.

[Riddick]

It's got a long ways to go on both issues to get passed. So the sky is not falling just yet..

[GungHo06]

what would happen if i shot a burglur with my dad's gun?
would my dad get in trouble?
lame

[Eyes On]

Useless legislation. In all 50 States, parents are held vicariously criminally and civilly responsible for any criminal act related to a minor accessing a parents firearm and harming themselves or another person. There is lots of precedent behind that principle, and it is therefore well established law. In some states (Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, California, Idaho, Utah, Kansas and several others included), you can be held vicariously liable if your firearm is stolen by an intruder who steals your firearm if the weapon was not reasonably secured, and uses that weapon to commit a murder or assault.

For those wondering, no, if your child illegally accesses a weapon from an outside source, or uses extreme methods to access a reasonably secured firearm, you the parent are generally not criminally liable.

[basby]

I’m not too worried yet.
It may pass the House, but I highly doubt it will go anywhere in the Senate.

[yandle]

I hate the "It's for the children" mentality with a passion.

[DMitri]

It's not FOR the children. It's FOR the retarded gun-nut parents who don't PARENT their kids and leave guns around the house.

what would happen if i shot a burglur with my dad's gun?
would my dad get in trouble?
lame

Maybe actually reading the legislation would help eh?

if the child uses the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury to the child or any other person, shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both.

`(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply if--

`(A) at the time the child obtained access, the firearm was secured with a secure gun storage or safety device;

`(B) the person is a peace officer, a member of the Armed Forces, or a member of the National Guard, and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the official duties of the person in that capacity;

`(C) the child uses the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of 1 or more other persons; or

`(D) the person has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises on which the firearm is kept.'.

*applause*

[sproc]

Dems.... Out to save Americans from themselves. Creating a f***ing nanny state.

The problem is that an increasing portion of the population wants a nanny state. The Dems are just exploiting that trend. They're still evil, but not the primary folks to blame.

[Pants of Death]

I hate Democrat politicians. They keep doing stupid stuff like this.

[Haloeclipse]

We need this people. It takes a village! We cant trust parents to raise kids and teach them to properly handle potentially dangerous tools, only the dems know how to do so properly.

As far as semi automatic rifles are concerned, what is the % of deaths and injury caused to children by semi auto rifles comapred to other types of firearms? Is it high enough to actually justify a law specificly for semi auto rifles?

[Bad Karma]

@haloeclipse: you're joking about that first part, right? Just because Jane and Joe Blow can't raise their kids properly doesn't give the state (state as in country, not as in the U.S. territorial division context) the right to step in and parent the whole nation. I'm sure the notion that the government should be able to step in and run other people's lives and tell them what to do/not to do with their kids sounds great to you, but just wait until the government starts telling YOU how to be a parent. I don't think you will be so supportive of the nanny state then. When parents give their kids fast food, which is scientifically proven to be inherently bad for you, does that give the state the right to step in and tell them what to/not to feed their kids? I agree that there are horrible parents out there who do little to control their children and thus problems are created, but I don't think that the answer to bad parenting is even MORE state/federal regulation. I don't know what the answer is, but I know its NOT to strip away our freedoms to raise our children in the ways that we see fit (within reason, of course).

[CommieHunter]

Yes, he was being cynical.

[Riddick]

@haloeclipse: you're joking about that first part, right? Just because Jane and Joe Blow can't raise their kids properly doesn't give the state (state as in country, not as in the U.S. territorial division context) the right to step in and parent the whole nation. I'm sure the notion that the government should be able to step in and run other people's lives and tell them what to do/not to do with their kids sounds great to you, but just wait until the government starts telling YOU how to be a parent. I don't think you will be so supportive of the nanny state then. When parents give their kids fast food, which is scientifically proven to be inherently bad for you, does that give the state the right to step in and tell them what to/not to feed their kids? I agree that there are horrible parents out there who do little to control their children and thus problems are created, but I don't think that the answer to bad parenting is even MORE state/federal regulation. I don't know what the answer is, but I know its NOT to strip away our freedoms to raise our children in the ways that we see fit (within reason, of course).

Did you know in California they are trying to make it illegal to spank your children?