Jump to content

H.R. 1022 now has 26 co-sponsors including most police organizations


Recommended Posts

Police organizations that now support H.R. 1022

 

 

International brotherhood of police officers

National sherrifs association

National fraternal order of police

Major cities chiefs association

Police executive reasearch forum

police foundation

National association of school resourse officers

Major counties serrifs association

National association of woman law enforcement executives

Hispanic American police command officers association

National organization of black law enforcement executives

National black police association

Link to post
Share on other sites

So when do we need to start really worrying about the number of cosponsors? I mean I worry now, I right every other day. But is 26 a big number, half of all reps, or is it a drop in the bucket?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the police organisations support this. When this country completes the transformation to a fascist police state it will make it easier to stamp out La Resistance'. Viva La Resistance'!!!

 

post-5131-1173956834_thumb.jpg

post-5131-1173956886_thumb.jpg

 

OK, all jokes aside, I'm sure there are a lot of really pissed of cops about this. I know a lot of police officers with personal weapons that this would ban.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you must be thinking Senate when you say 26 is half of all reps since there are two senators per state. I think there are about 400 representatives in the house. probably more since it is based on population.

 

If it ever reaches the floor then we (honest, responsible, patriotic, rights not privilege loving AMERICANS) are screwed.

 

So when do we need to start really worrying about the number of cosponsors? I mean I worry now, I right every other day. But is 26 a big number, half of all reps, or is it a drop in the bucket?
Edited by rocinante
Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder how much funding they got for being co sponsors?

 

 

... My thoughts on this go along the lines of alcohol, tobacco, & pot. If the govt really wanted to do something healthy/productive ... they have two choices: destroy totally & no tolerance or legallize. Cigarettes are the easiest example. If most people really quit smoking think of the revenue the govt would lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
you must be thinking Senate when you say 26 is half of all reps since there are two senators per state. I think there are about 400 representatives in the house. probably more since it is based on population.

 

If it ever reaches the floor then we (honest, responsible, patriotic, rights not privilege loving AMERICANS) are screwed.

 

No I was thinking of the house, I just didn't know there were 400. I'm relatively new to being political, and I usually slept in social studies. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bath tubs, kill more people annually than Illegal assult riffles. Imagine if the number were ever compared to the numbers of cigarette attributed deaths it would soon seem nigligable...

My Reps from Florida Claim to be Against this BS perpretration of rigth violations.. Come on guys, we need to make it known in no uncertain terms that 1022= political Sepuku(suicide)

I have a feeling if this thing actually makes it anywhere many innocent freedom loving americans will chose the ultimate sacrifice rather than hand over one of the principals this country was built on..

 

Are there any letters being written to the co-sponsors (LEO Agencies) we could adapt and send. Or maybe even better a clear, simple, concisse statement consisting of no more than a short paragraph te be delivered via telephone so the tone is not left to speculation and maybe get some fear of backlash into these morons...

what say ye LEOs? I salute you and implore youre help!!!

It seems to me to be an insult, to allthose who figth to protect what this country stands for, to throw the ideals we revere out the window while they are over seas giving it all, and in no position to even give an opinion since all these highly suspect transactions are conducted in a sneeky manner.

Edited by 305diver
Link to post
Share on other sites

One quick tip, don't bother emailing your reps about this. They treat email from "citizens" as spam. My cousin works for a rep, and she told me the best way to get thier attention is a HANDWRITTEN letter. Just FYI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is 1994 all over again. Most of all the police organizations back then were also supporting the assault weapons ban. I believe that before it left committee in 94 that it had slightly over 100 co-sponsors.

 

 

Every week the number of democratic co-sponsors grows and with it the number of new anti-gun organizations.

 

 

When it has enough co-sponsors and organizations behind it, then other politicians outside of congress will step in to support it, including the sections of the media.

Edited by TacticalResponse
Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be remembered that most police chiefs and heads of police organizations are political appointees. That the "organization" or "department" supports the bill only means that a few politicians with badges support it.

 

I have seen several surveys of LEOs that show most guys on the street support gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. That's because they understand that criminals will have guns no matter how many bs laws are passed, so the laws only disarm potential victims.

 

That said...

 

Letters Letters Letters!!!!! Bury every congresscritter in letters! The police organizations don't get to vote on the bill, so don't worry about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call the NRA-ILA. This is the "lobbying arm" of the NRA...they say so on their website.

 

Currently, they have a press release about this bill, with the usual writing about how bad it is, etc. It ends with the standard "contact your Congressman or Congresswoman" line. Nothing, however, about what it is, or is not, doing to help defeat this.

 

Since this may partly/mostly be explained by not wanting to advertise its strategy, it's not surprising.

 

However, in addition to contacting your congressperson, heat needs to be applied to the NRA-ILA to make sure they know that members ARE concerned over this, and you want to know what they are doing about it, etc.

 

NRA-ILA

11250 Waples Mill Road

Fairfax, Virginia 22030

800-392-8683 - Grassroots Hotline

 

Unleash the Hounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time the FOP pulled this stuff a lot of the nationals lost their jobs. It is a power play on their parts. The locals will have none of it and protest.

 

Contrary to what most of the Cop Haters think, most police do not want to live in a Police State!

Link to post
Share on other sites
HR1022 has 30 Co-sponsors now, 7 of whom are on the House Judiciary Committee where the bill will first be heard.

 

There are 38 Members on the House Judiciary Committee. 22 of them are Democrats. If they vote party line, this thing is getting out of comittee.

 

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx

 

 

It's only logical that it's going to leave committee for a House vote. When it does if the democrats vote party line it will pass in the House and so much for the new democratic congressmen that said they were pro-gun. When it goes to the Senate it will be interesting to see if those democrats that claimed to be pro-gun before the Fall elections there will vote for it, or wether republicans will filibuster it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a deputy sheriff in V.A. I don`t support this bill in fact quite the opposite I support the right to keep and bear arms. I for one will be contacting my reps in congress and the various organizations to let them know how I feel. I`ve been in law enforcement for ten years(8 in illinois & 2 in virginia) and I`ve never felt more threatened by democRATS than I feel now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's only logical that it's going to leave committee for a House vote. When it does if the democrats vote party line it will pass in the House and so much for the new democratic congressmen that said they were pro-gun. When it goes to the Senate it will be interesting to see if those democrats that claimed to be pro-gun before the Fall elections there will vote for it, or wether republicans will filibuster it.

 

Let me just say that if this lands on Bush's desk, I have no faith that he will veto it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's going out of that committee into the rules committee which is not stacked full of anti-gunners but instead stacked full of rural pro gun democrats.

 

You have to understand that:

25 members is still only 1/17th of the house. This even close to ten percent yet. Certainly not a majority.

The judiciary committee will pass out any anti-gun bill. It is composed of half anti-gun democrats and half pro-gun republicans. There are 1-2 pro-gun dems on the judiciary committee and 1-2 anti-gun republicans. Basically the anti-gunners have a 1 seat majority on the judiciary comittee.

The judiciary is not the only comittee that it can get stuck in, merely the first.

Controlling the judiciary is a lot easier than controlling the entire house, which the antigunners certainly do not do.

The antigunners also dont control enough seats to stop a progun filibuster in the senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's only logical that it's going to leave committee for a House vote. When it does if the democrats vote party line it will pass in the House and so much for the new democratic congressmen that said they were pro-gun. When it goes to the Senate it will be interesting to see if those democrats that claimed to be pro-gun before the Fall elections there will vote for it, or wether republicans will filibuster it.

 

Let me just say that if this lands on Bush's desk, I have no faith that he will veto it.

 

 

When Bush made that statement in 2004 he had a republican congress and not a democratic one. He also had a republican congress that he knew would never send him a 94 AWB reauthorization bill.

 

He said it for political reasons only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets hope. only time will tell. if this bill doesn't get signed now, it will be signed by the president elected in 08. They are all anti-gun. Our only options now are to buy what we can now before they aren't available. The DC gun case will have a lot to say about future rights of gun owners, but I have very little faith in the USCT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's only logical that it's going to leave committee for a House vote. When it does if the democrats vote party line it will pass in the House and so much for the new democratic congressmen that said they were pro-gun. When it goes to the Senate it will be interesting to see if those democrats that claimed to be pro-gun before the Fall elections there will vote for it, or wether republicans will filibuster it.

 

Let me just say that if this lands on Bush's desk, I have no faith that he will veto it.

 

 

When Bush made that statement in 2004 he had a republican congress and not a democratic one. He also had a republican congress that he knew would never send him a 94 AWB reauthorization bill.

 

He said it for political reasons only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lets hope. only time will tell. if this bill doesn't get signed now, it will be signed by the president elected in 08. They are all anti-gun. Our only options now are to buy what we can now before they aren't available. The DC gun case will have a lot to say about future rights of gun owners, but I have very little faith in the USCT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's only logical that it's going to leave committee for a House vote. When it does if the democrats vote party line it will pass in the House and so much for the new democratic congressmen that said they were pro-gun. When it goes to the Senate it will be interesting to see if those democrats that claimed to be pro-gun before the Fall elections there will vote for it, or wether republicans will filibuster it.

 

Let me just say that if this lands on Bush's desk, I have no faith that he will veto it.

 

 

When Bush made that statement in 2004 he had a republican congress and not a democratic one. He also had a republican congress that he knew would never send him a 94 AWB reauthorization bill.

 

He said it for political reasons only.

 

 

 

 

I have a hard time seeing the SCOTUS giving us back our gun rights that they've been taking from us for over 70 years overnight.

 

Once our government takes our Second Amendment rights away, we don't ever seem to have them returned. The government allowing the 94 AWB to expire was extremely unusual. We can only hope for the best in upcoming court battles concerning this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Police organizations that now support H.R. 1022

 

 

International brotherhood of police officers

National sherrifs association

National fraternal order of police

Major cities chiefs association

Police executive reasearch forum

police foundation

National association of school resourse officers

Major counties serrifs association

National association of woman law enforcement executives

Hispanic American police command officers association

National organization of black law enforcement executives

National black police association

 

Ive supported the National sherrifs association for the past several years with donations , but they will get no more donations from me. I am also writting my local Sheriff explaining as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These police organizations sound like DemocRat allies who don't care about the rank and file police officer. When the FOP call me for a donation they'll get an earful from me about their support of this disgusting bill. The minority police organizations only care about 'affirmative action' for their members and will walk in goose steps with other leftist organizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
These police organizations sound like DemocRat allies who don't care about the rank and file police officer. When the FOP call me for a donation they'll get an earful from me about their support of this disgusting bill. The minority police organizations only care about 'affirmative action' for their members and will walk in goose steps with other leftist organizations.

 

It is not wise to support national police organizations, most are anti-gun, especially northern based organizations. It is best to find out what your local police organizations stand for and if beneficial, support them. Most LEO's that I know are pro second ammendment. But, I'm also from the south.

Link to post
Share on other sites
These police organizations sound like DemocRat allies who don't care about the rank and file police officer. When the FOP call me for a donation they'll get an earful from me about their support of this disgusting bill. The minority police organizations only care about 'affirmative action' for their members and will walk in goose steps with other leftist organizations.

 

It is not wise to support national police organizations, most are anti-gun, especially northern based organizations. It is best to find out what your local police organizations stand for and if beneficial, support them. Most LEO's that I know are pro second ammendment. But, I'm also from the south.

 

The letter of solicitation for the NSA came from my local Sheriff.....To his credit he did sign off on my SBR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...