In the House of Representatives...HR 127 has been submitted.
It lists six things:
1. There has to be a mandated and public accessible listing of gun owners, their weapons and 'where' the guns are kept.
2. Some ammo (50-cal or greater) would be banned entirely.
3. Mandate gun owners purchase some type of weapon insurance (must be $800 a year).
4. Create a psychological evaluation for anyone wanting to buy a gun.
5. Mandate some type of government training course prior to purchase.
6. If you fail on any of these mandates, a penalty of ten years in prison and $50k minimum fine.
Odds of passing? I suspect that more than one-third of Democratic House members and at least ten Democratic Senators would be unable to support this....as it's constructed.
So you start off with the obvious big issue....you could actually do more jail-time than a guy selling LSD to school kids.
The governmental training angle? Who? You'd have to create some county-by-county training establish....probably over 10k employees, and take into consideration that maybe 1-percent of the applicants marginally speak English. The cost of this training? Just for one single day (eight hours), I would assume near $300.
The mental review? Who is doing this? How are they qualified? If they qualified some 18-year-old guy and three years later....he's hearing voices (paranoid schizophrenia).....are you going to hold the mental review guy responsible if the nutcase shoots three people?
How many idiots are buying 50-cal guns and 50-cal ammo? Maybe half of one-percent? Just adding up the general cost of 50-cal ammo....you could probably a pretty good evening out (with fine dining and wine) for one single box of 50-cal ammo.
The insurance angle? Why does the insurance cost $800? Sorry, but you need to establish what the end-result of the insurance should be first....before you come to any pricing 'game'. If you invite the insurance guys into this discussion....they will tell you that pistols are more often used in regular shootings, and that shotgun insurance or rifle insurance should be more often around $10 a year. Do these idiots writing laws even grasp how insurance works?
I should add....if you consider all weapons, then knives ought to be dragged into the insurance game, and reflect some $90 insurance cost per year....if we are playing your stupid game.
Then you come to the serious joke here....if you lived in some highly urbanized area like Chicago....you might need to pay $800 a year, but if you lived in rural Colorado....you probably only need to pay $7 a year....if you are truly paying real insurance games.
HR 127 will linger around for most of the year....maybe get a brief discussion by November, and then expire by 31 December without ever being brought up for a vote.
If you tried to go and openly discuss this around the city of Detroit.....blacks and whites....working class people....I doubt if you can find more than 5-percent of the group who'd support this idea. Most will laugh over how it's constructed. Even if you asked folks who has 50-cal weapons in Detroit....you might find fewer than five folks in the entire city with that 'hobby'.
