A little birdy told me that HR2640 has Bush’s John Hancock now affixed to it. It is now law.
I’ll let this be an open thread for folks to have their say, good or ill.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
A little birdy told me that HR2640 has Bush’s John Hancock now affixed to it. It is now law.
I’ll let this be an open thread for folks to have their say, good or ill.
Comments are closed.
I had seen here that it was expected to happen today, but hadn’t been able to find anything else about it. Anyway, I can’t imagine there was any doubt that he would sign it.
I’m not happy about the legislation (although not for Pratt’s reasons), but it’s here now, with a lot of support from gun owners (including many whom I respect as gun rights advocates), and there seems little point in getting worked up about it.
Personally, I don’t like it. Like many gun control provisions it has some good intentions and even some good aspects, but these cannot be rationalized in light of the entirety of the bill.
It makes it that much easier to disbar individuals from legally owning, carrying, or possessing firearms and subscribes to the guilty till proven innocent principle. i.e. You don’t have to be proven in a court of law to be mentally unstable, but in order to get a determination reversed you need to be able to prove your innocence.
Not that it’s necessary, but here’s the official confirmation.