updated AW ban to include Garands?


PDA






ACP
July 22, 2003, 11:24 AM
I have a friend here at work who shoots hi-power, says he has heard a RUMOR that congressional talk about extending/repealing the federal assualt weapons ban is leaning towards expanding it, to include even semi-auto rifles like the Garand??

Has anyone heard this?? Sorry to be so generic...

If you enjoyed reading about "updated AW ban to include Garands?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
goalie
July 22, 2003, 11:35 AM
I am sure there are people in congress that have talked about banning just about every gun ever made, so I would say that yes is a likely answer to your question. A better question would be if said language has been placed into a bill in either the house or the senate as of this time. I do not know the answer to that one.

Telperion
July 22, 2003, 11:49 AM
The Garand is not listed in the House bill (HR2038), but the M1 carbine and mini-14 are. :banghead:

4v50 Gary
July 22, 2003, 02:07 PM
Throw the scallywags out of office. :mad:

Bartholomew Roberts
July 22, 2003, 02:21 PM
The Garand is not specifically named in HR 2038 but it would be banned by any of the following provisions:

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(v) a barrel shroud.

(`(36) BARREL SHROUD- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.)

(`(38) DETACHABLE MAGAZINE- The term `detachable magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.)

`(42) PISTOL GRIP- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.

`(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.'.

As noted above, the M1 Carbine and Mini-14 are named specifically.

There is a lot worse than that in HR 2038 though - it is a nasty, nasty bill. Basically puts the U.S. on par with Australia in terms of owning semi-automatic weapons.

ACP
July 22, 2003, 02:28 PM
Thanks, guys. I just looked it up. There is some discussion about this on Battlerifles.com under politics and the thread "Mr. &Mrs. America...". The consensus over there is that this doesn't have any chance of passing into law.

But where can I get some good info. to include in a letter to my congressman and senators asking them to oppose HR 2038 and to support a sunset of the AW ban?? Any help would be appreciated.

RandyB
July 22, 2003, 03:00 PM
You would have thought they would have learned their lessons when we kicked a bunch out of office after they first passed the AWB.:cuss: :banghead: :fire:

Standing Wolf
July 22, 2003, 03:45 PM
You would have thought they would have learned their lessons when we kicked a bunch out of office after they first passed the AWB.

If they were bright enough to draw obvious conclusions, they'd advocate locking up criminals instead of disarming law-abiding American citizens.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 22, 2003, 04:08 PM
I'd agree that HR2038 doesn't have much chance of being passed into law... yet. The main thing it does (or should do) is serve as a signpost on the highway indicating where we are going to end up if we don't turn this car around.

Right now the antis will be happy with Senator Feinstein's slightly more modest bill that eliminates the sunset of the current ban and bans the import of pre-1994 magazines once and for all.

We need to make it clear that the Senate version is no more acceptable than the House version.

But where can I get some good info. to include in a letter to my congressman and senators asking them to oppose HR 2038 and to support a sunset of the AW ban??

http://www.awbansunset.com

alan
July 22, 2003, 04:49 PM
The TOLL FREE phone number for Capitol Switchboard is 1-800-648-3516. I have posted it before. Just tell the nice lady who answers which senate or congressional office yu want to speak with. When connected, deliver your message of OPPOSITION to HB 2038 and or any other similar foolishness.

The rights you help to save are yours.

ACP
July 22, 2003, 05:51 PM
Thanks again guys.

Mark Tyson
July 22, 2003, 06:11 PM
This "sporting purposes" nonsense needs to be shouted down. Loudly.

Justin
July 22, 2003, 06:20 PM
A couple of months ago I did a quick analysis of the proposed bill. While HR 2038 doesn't ban the Garand by name, it does have provisions in it that can be used to ban Garands.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23503&highlight=ban

(It also lists a pump-action shotgun as an 'assault weapon' in the section that lists weapons by name.)

Sam Adams
July 22, 2003, 07:56 PM
Does "ban" in this case (HR 2038) mean "no further sales" like the present AWB, or does it mean "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in"?

It will be bad enough if the former, but a lot of guns will get turned in bullets first :what: if the latter.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 23, 2003, 09:04 AM
It means no further sales; but it also makes it illegal to transfer the weapons except through qualified FFLs. Another thing it does is shift the burden of proof on regular capacity mag ownership - you now have to have proof that a standard mag for a weapon was produced prior to 1994 or you can be prosecuted.

Sam Adams
July 23, 2003, 11:09 AM
Thanks for the info.

My opinion is that the McCarthy bill is DOA - it is just too extreme. However, I worry that it is just a stalking horse, that DiFi & Schumer told her to propose this extremely harsh bill so that their "reasonable" bill could get through as a compromise. I just hope and pray that there is no Supreme Court nomination in play at the time, because I could easily see a compromise wherein Bush gets a few Dem votes for the USSC nominee and we get f'd. :fire:

The WHOLE of the AWB must sunset, and all of us have to be very vigilent - calling and writing to our reps and Bush. I will be starting my own personal campaign next month - I'm sending at least one letter a month to my rep and 2 Senators, plus the Prez, and will continue to do so until the thing dies. I will also make lots of calls, many on behalf of some anti-gun people that I know. :D :D

If you enjoyed reading about "updated AW ban to include Garands?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!