Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Hits Congress


PDA






rick_reno
May 12, 2003, 12:06 PM
http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=644

Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Hits Congress


Clinton Ban "Re-enactment" Targets Millions More Guns!!!
As we predicted, the anti-gunners have begun the push to further expand the Clinton gun ban of 1994. Not content with merely re-authorizing the ban, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) have drafted legislation that bans millions more guns! It's a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said on CBS's 60 Minutes: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." Toward that goal, Conyers/McCarthy would:


Ban every gun made to lawfully comply with the Clinton ban. The Clinton ban arbitrarily dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments that new guns could have. Manufacturers complied. New guns were made to conform to the Clinton restrictions. Now prohibitionists want to ban the new guns, too.

Ban guns the Clinton legislation expressly exempted from prohibition. This includes Ruger Mini-14s, Ranch Rifles, and .30 Caliber Carbines, and entire classes of guns, including fixed magazine rifles, as well as shotguns that hold under five rounds.

Ban guns widely used for target shooting. It bans the three center-fire rifles most commonly used for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A, and the M1 "Garand."

Ban all semi-automatic shotguns: Remingtons, Winchesters, Benellis, Berettas, etc., widely used for hunting, trap, skeet, and sporting clays, by banning their receivers (main component).

Ban guns for defense. Bans any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun any U.S. Attorney General one day claims is not "sporting," even though self-defense is a fundamental right and the federal constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use guns for defense.


Ban 68 named guns (Clinton ban named 19 guns); Ban parts used to repair or refurbish guns, including frames or receivers; Ban importation of ammunition magazines exempt under Clinton ban; Ban private sales of millions of guns, their frames and receivers, and their parts; Ban semi-automatic rifles under 30" long (useful for home defense); Ban all semi-automatic rifles that can hold more than 10 rounds.


Ban guns rarely used in crime. State and local law enforcement agency reports have always shown that guns on the Clinton and Conyers/McCarthy ban lists have never been used in more than a small percentage of violent crime. The Congressionally-mandated study of the Clinton law concluded that guns it banned "were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders." But even if they were, are the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens to be dictated by the acts of criminals?


Begin "backdoor" registration. Requires manufacturers of banned guns, frames, receivers, and parts to report the names of their dealers, and requires dealers to report any of those parts they have in stock. The next step is obvious-demanding the names of gun owners who buy those parts.

Please contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 or by using the "Write Your Representatives" feature and urge them to oppose any attempt to keep alive the Clinton gun ban.

If you enjoyed reading about "Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Hits Congress" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Telperion
May 12, 2003, 12:26 PM
Here's the full text of the House bill, H.R.2038:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2038:

Mizzoutiger
May 12, 2003, 12:30 PM
Let those Rats get a little overzealous. The bill will spontaneously combust. President Bush may be counting on never having to see an AWB bill. At least, that's how I hope it goes down.

Mark Tyson
May 12, 2003, 01:46 PM
It looks to me as if our enemies are really overplaying their hand this time. Maybe a simple reauthorization of the original bill would have been harder to oppose. Could there be a silver lining to this atrocious legislation?

Sven
May 12, 2003, 01:49 PM
This is going to invoke pure rage from all red-blooded Americans.

Time for an inquisition against the infidels who are supposedly 'representing' the people of America.

Mark Tyson
May 12, 2003, 01:59 PM
Consider my rage invoked, Sven.

Justin
May 12, 2003, 02:07 PM
Keep in mind that they may have made this thing deliberately over-the-top in the hopes of letting some of the more onerous parts being bargained away. You could chip away a lot of that law and still have something worse than what was passed in 1994. Notice the bit about removing the sunset clause?

Call your representatives and congressthings. Do it now.

If any of your reps are listed on the following link, it's even more important that you contact them. This is the list of House members in the Judiciary Committee. The one that this thing has to go through first:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/members.htm

Pendragon
May 12, 2003, 02:10 PM
LOL.

There could hardly be a time when this bill is less likely to get any traction.

This is all about posturing and playing to their constituents.

No worries.

44Brent
May 12, 2003, 02:19 PM
I would like to suggest that the bill be amended to ban military style "Assault Vehicles", specifically the Hummer. Hummers can be used to run over hundreds of kids on school grounds. There is absolutely no reason that anyone NEEDS a Hummer.;)

MeekandMild
May 12, 2003, 02:43 PM
How about MREs? Dangerous assault beans!

Seriously I wonder how much chance this could be a ploy to jump start the economy? The Dems torpedoed the stock marked in 2000, hoping that Bush would sink with it if he got elected. Since then they blocked every effort at any reasonable tax reform.

Now they remember the gun rush of the early Clinton years and see the chance to influence a hundred million people to rush out and spend a thousand or two bucks apiece on durable consumer goods. Imagine what the economy would look like if everyone bought two dream guns. 2x1500x$100,000,000 equals $300,000,000,000!

Al Norris
May 12, 2003, 03:01 PM
Regardless of the whys and wherefors of either of the two bans, I have written the following to be mailed to my congress critters:

To The Honorable _____________

I am writing this letter to you to let you know that I am not only against the re-introduced Bill to extend and make permanmant the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, S.1034 by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but also the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003, HR 2038 by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.).

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a clear and concise meaning that all citizens of this nation have the right to keep and bear arms. All recent scholarship on the subject agree that this is an individual right. Furhter, the 5th Circuit Court of the U.S. recently upheld this right.

One of the most jealously guarded rights we, as citizens, have is the right to our lives. The right to defend ourselves and our families is fundamental to that right. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is about that, but more importantly, it is about the right to defend ourselves against a runaway government. This is established fact. In U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which is the only case the Supreme Court has taken the opportunity to visit the Second Amendment solely for the purposes of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Court devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Every single weapon under the current ban as well as every weapon under HR 2038 is explicitly a militia type weapon, including the Normal Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices that are currently labled as High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices and are therefore of legal usage under the Miller test. Further, labling any semi-automatic weapon as an assault weapon is certainly a misnomer as every assault weapon in the armory of the U.S. Armed Forces are select fire weapons, that is, they are capable of fully automatic fire.

The nature of the weapons selected for the current ban on so-called assault weapons appears to be completely arbitrary and wholly cosmetic in nature.

In conclusion, any Senator or Representative of the Great State of Idaho who votes for either of these Bills will not receive my vote upon the next election. Further, I will do whatever I must, to convince everyone I know to vote against you, should you so vote in favor of either of these two Bills.

Signed,
I suggest all of you do the same. Use this one, or write your own.

[edited to correct spelling]

AZTOY
May 12, 2003, 03:21 PM
Ban all semi-automatic shotguns: Remingtons, Winchesters, Benellis, Berettas, etc., widely used for hunting, trap, skeet, and sporting clays, by banning their receivers (main component).


I hope the hunters are starting to wake up:banghead: :banghead:

whitebear
May 12, 2003, 03:52 PM
you might want to run the spell checker on your message before you send it. Assault is misspelled in the second line of the first paragraph.

No offense intended! :D A very powerful, well-written letter!

Waitone
May 12, 2003, 04:05 PM
Before campaigning starts for presidential elections it is common for each side to firm up support in its base. The democrats' base includes rabid gun haters. This legislation is merely an attempt to convince democrats to support them.

It is also a measure of its view of the future. Looks to me like panic is setting in. Here we have an issue which some in the democrat party credit with losing them the 2000 election; gun control. So now they tune up for 2004 and how do they do it? Why by dropping any pretense and pose an outright ban on firearms. Now if they lost an election by a narrow margin due to gun rights in a few states, please tell me what they stand to gain by doing precisely what pro-RKBA supports have said all along they want to do, confiscate all guns. This legislation is designed to mobilize anyone remotely concerned with RKBA anywhere in the US.

Democrats have either lost any semblence of rationality in politics or they've consulted the crystal ball and just peered into the political abyss.

Al Norris
May 12, 2003, 04:37 PM
Done! Thanks whitebear.

gun-fucious
May 12, 2003, 04:53 PM
ya mean Ruger is getting its mini 14 banned after all ole Billy R did during the first go round?

whodathunkit?

whoami
May 12, 2003, 05:01 PM
Just for my own clarification, as my mind is too fried to interpret legalese right now, section 4 seems to me to modify the grandfather provision to read:

(v)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer,
or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2)
(A) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or
transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon
otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law as of
September 13, 1994
(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the
possession or transfer of which would (but for this
subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this
subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed
on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.


Now....what do they mean by subsection? Do they mean subsection as in (v), or the whole of 922? Does this basically extend the grandfathering, or does it make what we'd call post-bans illegal?

Greg L
May 12, 2003, 06:12 PM
One more Al :D

2nd para: "Furhter, the 5th Circuit Court of the U.S. recently upheld this right." Further.

Otherwise a great letter. I plan on filing off the serial #s and faxing it off. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Greg

Al Norris
May 12, 2003, 06:23 PM
Oh just Crap! :banghead:

OK, you folks find the spelling errors and fix them in your drafts! I'll import the thing into Word and fix it on my end! :D

It probably wouldn't hurt to add something about why Bush Sr and Gore lost and who it was that voted against them...but as it is, using a 12 point Times New Roman font, the letter is exactly 1 page. I don't suspect a multipage letter would be as well received as a single page source.

Preacherman
May 12, 2003, 06:29 PM
You could switch to 11-point or 10-point and write a novel... :D

Pinned&Recessed
May 12, 2003, 07:01 PM
(A) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or
transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon
otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law as of
September 13, 1994
(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the
possession or transfer of which would (but for this
subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this
subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed
on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.

I take this to mean that the current Pre-Bans are still grandfathered as prebans, and Post-Bans are grandfathered as Post-Bans. So there would be 4 classes of "Assault Weapons": True Pre-Bans, "Pre-Ban" Post-Bans, LEO only from the '94 ban and Totally Illegal AWs.

Basically, the law says that you can only possess a AW which was "Lawfully" possessed on that date the law was passed. So, could you "Lawfully" possess a Post-Ban AR with a Flash Suppressor or Bayo Lug when the new law would pass? No. Could you possess a LEO AW on that date of the new law? No, so therefore, the only way for your Post-Ban to remain legal is to leave it in it's Post-Ban state and the current Post-Ban AWs would not become available. It would also be illegal to modify a Post-Ban, despite the fact that every AW becomes "Pre-Ban".

I'm pretty sure that's what they're going for.

I hope this makes sense.

BowStreetRunner
May 12, 2003, 07:20 PM
I think McCarthy and Conyers are taking lessons in sheeple control from Mao and Stalin....sheesh
that bill goes beyond unconstitutional.......its straight oopression
BSR

Standing Wolf
May 12, 2003, 07:26 PM
Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites who'd be happier in communist China.

Brett Bellmore
May 12, 2003, 07:45 PM
Waitone,

"It is also a measure of its view of the future. Looks to me like panic is setting in. Here we have an issue which some in the democrat party credit with losing them the 2000 election; gun control. So now they tune up for 2004 and how do they do it? Why by dropping any pretense and pose an outright ban on firearms. Now if they lost an election by a narrow margin due to gun rights in a few states, please tell me what they stand to gain by doing precisely what pro-RKBA supports have said all along they want to do, confiscate all guns. This legislation is designed to mobilize anyone remotely concerned with RKBA anywhere in the US.

Democrats have either lost any semblence of rationality in politics or they've consulted the crystal ball and just peered into the political abyss."

I figure it's like this: While supporting gun control (more than Bush did...) lost Gore the election, and cost a few marginal Dems their seats, a lot of the remaining Democrats are from loony bin districts where frothing at the mouth actually helps you get elected. The only threat they face is in the primary, from the left. They've got to beat back that threat, even at the cost of making life harder for their comrades in saner districts.

The Presidential race doesn't even figure into their calculations, they've probably written 2004 off. At any rate, they're not going to cut their throats in the primaries just to help whoever gets picked to run against Bush.

You'll notice that the really nasty extension bill is in the House. That's because the House Dems have small districts dominated by big city machines. The Senate Democrats won't touch the more extreme version, because they have to carry whole states to win, not just city centers. {Granted, they generally do that by winning big enough in the city centers to make up for losing everywhere else, but there's a limit to how badly they can afford to lose outside the cities; Getting 120% of the inner city vote looks bad...}

If the Dems lose more seats in 2004, once again it will be because they lost the marginal seats where they have to at least seem to be sane. In that case, look for the remaining House Dems to be even crazier on average. Eventually they'll get reduced to just the Black caucus, who'll be introducing bills to have us rounded up into camps and executed. :D

Oleg Volk
May 12, 2003, 09:26 PM
One way to combat this is to take new folks to the range and explain to them that, once the bill becomes law, they won't be able to enjoy the toys they just enjoyed using anymore.

HBK
May 12, 2003, 11:11 PM
I am sending letters, but to be honest I don't think my reps give a damn what I think. They are probably sick of hearing from me, but I am going to stay the course.

AZTOY
May 12, 2003, 11:54 PM
I am sending letters, but to be honest I don't think my reps give a damn what I think. They are probably sick of hearing from me, but I am going to stay the course.

HBK

I thought the same thing but i got a Response from my Rep, Jim Kolbe:D .We have one good guy on are side!!

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21905

chaim
May 13, 2003, 12:43 AM
Wow that is one comprehensive list of banned guns and catagories.

They specifically mention even the Hi Point Carbine and Kel-Tec carbine as banned assult weapons!:what:

Wait, there's more, it gets, um, better...

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:...
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.


I like how the presumption is that a firearm originally designed or bought for military use is not suitable for sporting use and "a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event". The fact that it is suitable for a sporting event isn't proof that it is suitable for sporting purposes:confused: , these guys must have studied Orwell very closely.

Don't be too complacent, many MDers didn't think there would be anyway even this legislature would pass the built-in lock law, esp since almost nothing is made that way. Well, it passed and "pre-lock" guns are starting to get scarce and expensive.

Oh wow, I just looked over the list of sponsors (13 lines long) and there were quite a few MD Representatives there. Well, at least my guy isn't there, wait we were redistricted last election and my new guy IS on there:fire: . Well, I know for sure who I'll be voting AGAINST next election cycle if I'm still here in MD (I voted against him last time too).

bbrins
May 13, 2003, 12:47 AM
I sent another round of emails yesterday, and I will be sending another round of letters in the morning. And when I get some more time, a round of faxes. Probably won't make much of a difference with my state, but they can't say I didn't try.

TranquilityBase
May 13, 2003, 12:57 AM
...except her name is Sheila Jackson-Lee, probably the dumbest person ever elected to Congress.

Instead of writing letters, I love writing checks. Just in the past month I wrote checks to NRA, GOA, RKBA.com, Rep. Ron Paul, and a few others.

Only *you* know what you can do. Write letters to Congress or the local newspaper, if that is your forte. If you can write checks, write checks. Don't just sit there, damnit, do something!

chaim
May 13, 2003, 01:04 AM
I just fired off this message to my "Representative" The "Honorable" Elijah E. Cummings (and I will be sending something similar via "snail mail"):

"Dear Sir,

I am a lifelong Democrat. I have been active at some level since I was 14 years old (1984) and contribute politically with both my time and money as generously as I can. I usually volunteer for the campaign of at least one candidate per elections cycle. I have been moved to write this message to let you know that I can no longer support you or vote for you after you signed on as a co-sponsor for House bill, H.R.2038, which represents a ban on many legitamate sporting and self-defense arms. As a lifelong Democrat I am pained to tell you that I will be contributing as much time and money as I can to your opponent in the next General Election if you win the Primaries, and of course I will do what I can to help your opponent in the Primaries as well.

I am a Democrat, a Jew, a college educated professional, a soon-to-be graduate student and I am a gun owner. We are not all the raving lunatics, future or current criminals or unsophisticated rednecks so many gun opponents seem to think we are (in fact, very few of us fit any of those stereotypes). Most of the guns on your list are used in legitamate, and quite enjoyable, target events. The .223/5.56 carbines make effective home defense guns with lower recoil levels than even semi-automatic shotguns, a very important criteria for many. Semi-automatic shotguns (which will be banned under this bill) are most commonly used for sporting purposes such as trap and skeet shooting as well as hunting. For some of us who have health conditions that don't allow us to be able to handle the higher recoil of a pump shotgun this is our most effective home defense option. I will do all I can to keep access to some very fine sporting arms as well as some of the most effective home defense weapons available."

And no, there are no lies in there. Even though my politics these days may be closer to Republican I am still a registered Democrat and I am still holding on (for the time being) as a conservative Democrat and watching which way the party heads this next presidential election cycle before deciding if I'll switch or remain a conservative Democrat.

556A2
May 13, 2003, 02:07 AM
Even though I tend to be very pessimistic, I do not think this bill would ever pass, but I will have to start writing the representives anyways.

Boats
May 13, 2003, 02:17 AM
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. NADLER, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. WATERS, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WEINER, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. CASE, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. HONDA, Mr. STARK, Ms. SOLIS, Ms. LEE, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. NORTON, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. RUSH, Ms. WATSON, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. OWENS, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. FARR, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. HOLT, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. FATTAH, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Mr. LANGEVIN) introduced the bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Are any of these above twits Republicans?

THE FACE OF EVIL! Sorry, I somehow cut off the "D" on the extreme left.
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/images/interface/sen-home_03c.jpg

Justin
May 13, 2003, 04:54 AM
For those of you complacently sitting there saying that this bill would never pass, I would suggest that you actually go get a pen, or better yet, fire up your favorite word processing program and write a letter. If it turns out that the bill doesn't pass, and your effort of writing letters to stop it wasn't needed, you can tell me 'See, I told you so!'

In the meantime, write, call, fax, and email your reps.

That includes you duck hunters.

whoami
May 13, 2003, 09:14 AM
Are any of these above twits Republicans?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Republican Representative Chris Smith, 4th District, New Jersey. I had the highest respect for his work regarding veterans affairs and human rights issues.....

:fire:

Seawolf
May 13, 2003, 10:32 AM
Are any of these above twits Republicans?


Mr. SHAYS, 4th District Representative of Connecticut is a "Republican."

May as well just call him a democrat. With this and his now overturned campaign censorship bill.

rick_reno
May 13, 2003, 12:31 PM
Many posters have pointed out that bill has little chance of sucess in the current House. I am sure this is correct. What it does offer is a roadmap of where some members of Congress want to take gun control - and for that reason it should not be ignored.

Russ
May 13, 2003, 12:33 PM
You may well have a few RINO's vote for this but I think there are a few Dems that won't, like Dingell. Even still, most of the Republicans are pretty conservative and I don't think they will let this baby out of committee let alone let it be voted on on the House floor.

I'm glad the fool DemocRATS proposed the more sweeping California Style law. This has no chance of passing. Let them get as freaky as they want to with it. They want to ban M-1 Carbines now. Never happen. It just makes them look desperate.

Battler
May 13, 2003, 12:48 PM
Aren't there two bills, the "more advanced/progressive" bill you're describing, and a rehash of the original?

Don't lose sight of the rehash of the original - it's the one with the greatest chance of gettting thru.

Russ
May 13, 2003, 01:01 PM
The rehash of the original has already been submitted by Diane Franenstein as far as I know. This has the best odds of making it to be sure, however, I really don't think this one will make it out of House Committee. The California style bill is certainly DOA.

Go to the GOA website. There they have a pre-drefted letter that you can send to Pres Bush and all your congress critters. Granted, it's E mail but it all helps. Do also send snail mail and faxes whenever possible. This takes them more time to deal with and sends a powerful message.

I have seen Wayne LaPierre on the tube for the last 3 nights and he is confident that the bill will never get out of Congress. I don't recall him ever sounding so confident so maybe he knows more than he's letting on at this point.

If the weaker version does actually get to Bush, he will sing it and will likely become a one term President. But as I said, I doubt these bills will get out of committee. Let the Dems blow smoke. It's a losing issue anyway.

GSB
May 13, 2003, 01:11 PM
A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

It's only a short legislative leap from this to handguns too -- in which case no 1911s, Berettas, or probably Glocks or Sigs for that matter.

TheOtherOne
May 13, 2003, 03:46 PM
Even if it doesn't "stand a chance" of being passed I like to be better safe than sorry and writing a letter is better than doing nothing. Mine is a little shorter then some of the others posted, but I tried to keep it quick and to the point:


Dear Representative [name],

I am writing to ask how you stand on H.R. 2038 (Reauthorization of the assault weapons ban) and to express my strong disapproval of this proposed bill.

I feel that the goal and only outcome of the passing of this bill will be to restrict the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens.

The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Please do not support this unconstitutional bill. I am hopeful that you will do all in your power to prevent the passage of this gross restriction of our freedoms.

Please let me know your stance on this important issue.

Sincerely,

[me]

Coltdriver
May 13, 2003, 04:35 PM
This bill and Feinsteins version will never make it out of committee let alone to a vote on the floor. The AWB is dead.

And soon so are Colt AR prices!

It is, nonetheless, a good idea to voice your opinion to your congress critters.

Shadowman
May 13, 2003, 05:26 PM
Members of the judiciary committee and GOA report card "grade"

Mr. Carter (Texas) a
Mr. Coble (North Carolina) a
Mr. Feeney (Florida) a
Mr. Flake (Arizona) a
Mr. Keller (Florida) a
Mr. King (Iowa) a
Mr. Pence (Indiana) a
Mrs. Blackburn (Tennessee) a
SENSENBRENNER, a
Mr. Bachus (Alabama) a-
Mr. Chabot (Ohio) a-
Mr. Forbes (Virginia) a-
Mr. Goodlatte (Virginia) a-
Mr. Jenkins (Tennessee) a-
Mr. Smith (Texas) a-
Mr. Cannon (Utah) a
Mr. Hostettler (Indiana) a+
Mr. Boucher (Virginia) b
Ms. Hart_ (Pennsylvania) b
Mr. Green (Wisconsin) b-
Mr. Gallegly (California) c
Mr. Hyde (Illinois) c-
Mr. Watt (North Carolina) f
Ms. Baldwin (Wisconsin) f
Ms. Sanchez (California) f
Mr. Berman (California) f-
Mr. Conyers (Michigan) f-
Mr. Delahunt (Massachusetts) f-
Mr. Meehan (Massachusetts) f-
Mr. Nadler (New York) f-
Mr. Schiff (California) f-
Mr. Scott (Virginia) f-
Mr. Weiner (New York) f-
Mr. Wexler (Florida) f-
Ms. Jackson Lee (Texas) f-
Ms. Lofgren (California) f-
Ms. Waters (California) f-


The italics are Socialists (http://www.sierratimes.com/02/09/07/morse.htm)

Also, according to the GOA report card
A's + B's = 176
F's ~ 166

cordex
May 13, 2003, 09:48 PM
All my Federal elected officials contacted.

Hmmm ... anyone ever try calling yours? Ever get through?

Feanaro
May 14, 2003, 02:01 PM
I am typing out e-mails and faxes to all the Alabama Reps' and Senators right now. Then I think I'll move on to Alaska.

Master Blaster
May 14, 2003, 05:08 PM
For some of us who have health conditions that don't allow us to be able to handle the higher recoil of a pump shotgun this is our most effective home defense option.

Can your pump accept a greater than 5 round fixed magazine or a pistol grip?

Or is the reciever similar to one that can?

It is banned as well.

The clause about a design similar to a military one will allow the attorney general (a democratic one in 5 years say) to ban every firearm in existance at his discretion even Muzzle loaders!!!!.

This is a total ban on all firearms to be phased in, on common sense restriction at a time.

I called and emailed all my congresscritters when the senate version was introduced, and I called and emailed them again today.

Call and E-mail, dont send regular mail because its being screened for anthrax and other nasties and your congresscritter may not see it till next year.

chaim
May 15, 2003, 12:56 AM
The clause about a design similar to a military one will allow the attorney general (a democratic one in 5 years say) to ban every firearm in existance at his discretion even Muzzle loaders!!!!. I was thinking this at first as well (military designs?- Mauser, Mosin-Nagants, M1917s, many blackpowders, etc) but then I looked more carefully- it "only" effects semi-automatics. I at first thought similarly about the handgun restriction ("capable of holding more than 10 rounds"- hey any autoloader w/ aftermarket mags could have mags made that hold over 10 rounds- then I noticed that it was fixed mag handguns only). So this particular legislation, while horrible, doesn't quite go that far. Of course the next one might.

Master Blaster
May 15, 2003, 10:16 AM
Here is waht the law says, as I said this includes any semiauto or pump shot gun, and any semiauto rifle, if the AG decides it fits his conception of like a military weapon or Not suitable for sporting purposes:


H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or

`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

`(K) A conversion kit.

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.


or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.


Call YOUR CONGRESS CRITTER TODAY DONT TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT THIS WILL NOT PASS< ASSUME IT WILL>:fire:

Gunhead
May 15, 2003, 01:44 PM
GOP Will Let Gun Ban Expire
House Won't Act on Assault Weapons

Majority Leader Tom DeLay: "The votes in the House are not there."
(Ray Lustig -- The Washington Post)

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 14, 2003; Page A01

The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis
and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said yesterday, dealing
a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales
nationwide.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said most House members are
willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are
not there" to continue the ban, he told reporters.

His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing
it up" for a vote.

Read the full story here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51740-2003May13.html

Bartholomew Roberts
May 15, 2003, 02:47 PM
Let's not give up the fight just yet. We need to thank Delay for his support and make sure that we don't suddenly go silent and leave our opponents with the only voice that lawmakers are hearing.

benewton
May 15, 2003, 03:33 PM
And the promise to fail to bring it to a vote should, I hope, cover W's "I'll sign it." bit.

But if the promise fails, then what?

While I'd much prefer to be left alone, fat chance, given the gov's intrusion everywhere, including, around here, a 7% tax on DSL.

Still, this looks to me like a last chance type of thing...

Ah well, weapons fired, dogs walked, now gotta go "play" with the chainsaw.

Master Blaster
May 15, 2003, 05:38 PM
The Senate Bill just renews the old ban will it pass???

Maybe it will have some of the provisions of the house bill added in a midnight session.

Call and voice your opposition to both.

If you offer an alligator your finger he will take the whole arm.

Dont be silent.

If you enjoyed reading about "Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Hits Congress" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!