[ColoradoJeff]

House Bill 1703 was introduced by Rep. Ron Paul last week. Titled 'Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005', it would repeal major sections of federal gun control in one fell swoop. The analysis is yet to be completed, but check out House Bill 1703 (http://www.gunlawnews.org/housebills/hr1703.php) and see for yourself.

In reality it probably has little chance for passage, but it is great to see how at least one of our lawmakers is thinking.

It is about time we stop accepting compromise for the gun grabber's bills and started pushing in the right direction. Let them start compromising and let's incrementally dismantle what they have spent decades building.

[armoredman]

Start the campaign. Incredible luck would be needed now....

[RevDisk]

At times I think Ron Paul is the only honest politician in Washington. With a Republican control of all branches of government, this bill should be a snap victory, right? :rolleyes:

Call your Congresscritters anyways!

[Kamicosmos]

This would be nice!

Letter time...

[publius]

Although it is helpful, you really don't need the 2nd amendment to mount an attack on the Constitutionality of federal gun laws (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=135122). ;)

[P95Carry]

Here's a bit of contrast from NRA-ILA .... note use of word ''frivolous'' .. :rolleyes:D.C. Court Ruling Shows Need To Pass Firearm Liability Reform -
Washington Post A ruling of the D.C. Court of Appeals will allow frivolous lawsuits against lawful gun makers of semi-automatic rifles if they are used by criminals in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7981-2005Apr21.html

[Third_Rail]

Holy wow. That's quite the repeal. So, what are we betting on, one for and the rest against?

[RevDisk]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1703:

It's mostly just a repeal of various "sporting purpose" clauses, but still a step in the right direction.

The meat of the bill is removing Public Law 103-159. If I didn't know better, I'd swear that'd kill NICS. Removing NICS would kill most gun registration schemes and the federal waiting period.

:D

[Gifted]

I don't see the machine gun section on there. When you write your congress critters, remember to ask that a repeal on that be amended to it.

[beerslurpy]

This doesnt go far enough, but it is definitely a big step in the right direction. I read the text and it appears to:

-get rid of brady background check and waiting period
-get rid of all "sporting purposes" language in the US Code (including a number of examples Ive never even heard of) including:

89 import ban (and the legal basis for it) removed
destructive device category now excludes all rifles
destructive device category now excludes all shotguns
armor piercing ammunition now excludes all "projectiles"
FFLs may sell firearms at events regardless of the particular type of event
removes several stupid restrictions on shipping weapons to members of the armed forces


Ron Paul again leaps to the forefront of politicians I admire, respect and adore. If this man ran for president, I would gladly give to him as much money as legally possible and volunteer to work on his campaign. He is quite possibly the main positive reason I am a republican (the other 3 million reasons are things bad stuff that the democrats have done to piss me off).

[fjolnirsson]

Go, Ron Paul..... :D

[rick_reno]

With a Republican control of all branches of government, this bill should be a snap victory, right?

Yes, of course. We KNOW how the Republicans are the standard bearers in the movement to repeal gun control legislation. This is a slam dunk.

[beerslurpy]

This bill is actually not very daring at all. The effects on day-to-day life will be minimal at best. The ATF never arrests anyone over these laws and as far as I know, they dont really inconveience anyone to be repealed or kept.

The real purpose of this law will be to see which side your representative falls upon. I will see what my representative says. I suggest you guys all do the same.

This is the sort of litmus test that will expose the anti-gunners who are following Deans advice to "keep silent."

[beerslurpy]

No, dont give them an easy excuse to turn it down. Sporting purposes and brady check are plenty. Most non-gun-owners wont even raise an eyebrow if you mention those things.

[Standing Wolf]

With a Republican control of all branches of government, this bill should be a snap victory, right?

R.I.N.O.s don't count.

[publius]

Ron Paul again leaps to the forefront of politicians I admire, respect and adore. If this man ran for president
He did run, in 1988. I voted for him, and I'd do it again. He is almost (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html) a strict constructionist.

[dloken]

Ron Paul sort of falls into the RINO category. He's more of a libertarian than anything. One of the few Republicans that I actually like. :)

I'm e-mailing my Congressman, Paul Ryan about this.

[PrudentGT]

The real purpose of this law will be to see which side your representative falls upon. I will see what my representative says. I suggest you guys all do the same.

Oh, the suspense! (hint: look at my location...)

[RealGun]

The bill will test whether Republicans just enjoy more pro-gun votes than the Dems or whether they are serious about maintaining the support. For Ron Paul as a libertarian, it would be a great exit strategy, if the GOP doesn't come through. As a matter of fact, the GOP platform no longer mentions guns. I watched the conference that put it together, and they were all tied up with moralizing issues.

Actually this country is so polarized on abortion and maneuvering with judge appointments to overturn Roe V Wade that nothing else will get done until that question is settled. Gun control has to be a minor annoyance, and I would say our support is pretty weak. The issue could get sacrificed to save the larger battle for higher priorities that should not even be a matter of federal legislation IMHO. I am not highjacking threads. I am serious about how these issues are intertwined.

[Zrex]

Ron Paul introduces something similar every 2 years, and it never makes it out of committee. Let's see what happens this time. Maybe the Republicans will "care" more about gun rights this time around.

[PMDW]

Someone tell him to tack a section that would kill the 86 ban.

[Jay Kominek]

Well. I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before all the members of the 2nd Amendment caucus sign on as cosponsers. RIght?

[slowworm]

Someone tell him to tack a section that would kill the 86 ban.

I'm with you in spirit on this but looking at the reality of the political world I think it would be a step too far and would certainly doom the bills already limited chances of success if included.

The situation with gun control that we are in right now did not happen overnight. There were numerous bills and amendments, taking bites here and there.

We probably need to do the same thing in reverse. If we try and take it all back at one we will fail. I don't like it any more than you but I like to see myself as in the fight for the long haul. I'm in this for my kids future, not mine.

What is interesting to note is that the removal of the sporting purposes wording will re-open imports banned under the 89 import ban since that relied on sporting purpose.

That is a small victory I will take as a stepping stone.

[Daedalus]

Letter, E-Mail, and Phone Call sent to Rep. Stearns

[TarpleyG]

The only way this would ever get passed in the House is if Paul was the only one that showed up the day of the vote. The it has to go through the Senate, right?

I wish and I will write but it'll happen "when pigs fly."

Greg