Old NRA white man reviews gun laws: some are not that bad.

Before we conservatives get too excited over proposed gun law,  let’s take a look at several. They really are not that bad, at least the ones proposed,  below.    Too bad most of them will not accomplished the desired results,  however.  

Understand that I am a teaparty dude living in the State of California  (born and raised).  You cannot buy a gun at a show without going through a background check and 10 day waiting period.  Every purchase must be accompanied with a form and a background check.  You cannot buy an automatic weapon in the United States,  legally, much less California.   You can own 8 shell clips  (maybe 10 shell clips,  as well).  I own three 8 shell clips for my Glock 19.  You can’t get a large capacity clip (banana clip) for most long rifles.  I own a Ruger 10/22 (shoots the same ammo as a M-15) and have several 10 shell clips,  all legal.  I have a 28”  12 gauge shotgun with a 5 capacity  chamber  (I think 3 shell is the limit,  however). 

I mention all of the above to demonstrate that in a state with dozens of gun laws,  NRA members get along just fine.  

The Hill:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was shot to death in 1993, introduced four of the bills. The congresswoman has vowed to seek changes in federal law in response to the school shooting.    H.R. 137 and 138 from McCarthy would require people prohibited from buying firearms to be listed in a national database, and would prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition clips.  I see no serious problem, here.  Submachine guns were banned in 1936 along with 100 shell “belts.”  Making an adjustment on an ammunition clip is no big deal as long as I can have a capacity clip.  The folks who might invade my home,  will have high capacity clips  -  I need something that is equivalent. 

McCarthy’s H.R. 141 would require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions at gun shows, which would close the so-called gun-show loophole. Her H.R. 142 would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, the licensing of ammunition dealers, and the reporting of bulk ammo purchases.  This law seems pointless.  Dealers in California are licensed. There is no “gun show loophole” in California.    As far as “bulk” ammo purchases are concerned,   I would buy at below the limit.  No one needs to know how much ammo I own.    

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and Rush Holt (D-N.J.) each proposed their own bills tightening firearms licensing requirements — H.R. 34 and H.R. 117, respectively. And Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) proposed H.R. 65, which would raise the eligibility age to carry a handgun from 18 to 21.  I agree with raising the age of handgun owners,  but I fail to see what good this law will accomplish.  If you want to get guns off the streets,  prosecute gang members as the terrorist they are,  put them in jail and throw away the keys  (literally).  Rush and Holt want a required licensing of handguns.  That is already the case in California,  so this is no big deal to me. 

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) reintroduced his bill, H.R. 21, to require background checks for all gun sales, and to require gun owners to report when their guns have been stolen. Moran argued in December that while the National Rifle Association objects to these changes, members of the powerful group support them.  At some point in time,  I may report all my guns “stolen.”  Understand that the Second Amendment is all the ownership permission I need.  Also know, that the Jews of the Holocaust were all unarmed.