The Federal Assault Weapons Ban made it out of committee. It is time to start writing


PDA






unlimited4x4
March 14, 2013, 03:18 PM
So I just read that the Senate committee voted 10 to 8 for the AWB. Now it goes to the Senate for vote. In the language of the bill it bans semi-auto weapons, such as my Glock and AR. Can someone explain to me, does this mean I will not be able use these weapons at the range in public, or carry my G30 concealed anymore? I am very nervous and have contacted my representatives repeatedly in the past since this whole mess started.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Federal Assault Weapons Ban made it out of committee. It is time to start writing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SabbathWolf
March 14, 2013, 03:49 PM
So I just read that the Senate committee voted 10 to 8 for the AWB. Now it goes to the Senate for vote. In the language of the bill it bans semi-auto weapons, such as my Glock and AR. Can someone explain to me, does this mean I will not be able use these weapons at the range in public, or carry my G30 concealed anymore? I am very nervous and have contacted my representatives repeatedly in the past since this whole mess started.
It has to pass the senate first before it even moves on to the house or anywhere else.
We would have to know what the final wording is in the document.
I'm not aware of it banning handguns.
So far though, Ted Cruz is my new hero!

OneWound
March 14, 2013, 04:03 PM
Didn't the bill basically say a 10-round magazine limit on anything detachable?

SabbathWolf
March 14, 2013, 04:07 PM
Yes. There is a 10-round limit proposal on mags, but that doesn't ban handguns.

mljdeckard
March 14, 2013, 04:09 PM
I had Ted in mind for 2016, but he was born in Canada.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 14, 2013, 04:12 PM
I had Ted in mind for 2016, but he was born in Canada.

His parents were American citizens at the time, so still eligible.

SabbathWolf
March 14, 2013, 04:13 PM
I had Ted in mind for 2016, but he was born in Canada.
Well crap! I didn't know that.
Now THAT is ironic huh?
A Pro2A Canadian fighting on "our" side.

SabbathWolf
March 14, 2013, 04:14 PM
His parents were American citizens at the time, so still eligible.
OH!!!!
Well SWEET.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Swampdragon/smilies/537ea62f.gif

mgmorden
March 14, 2013, 04:16 PM
Yes. There is a 10-round limit proposal on mags, but that doesn't ban handguns.

It doesn't ban handguns in general, but it bans handguns which are a semi-auto version of a gun that is available in a full-auto version.

By its specific wording that does ban at least the Glock 17 (semi-auto version of the Glock 18). Other models could also be affected depending on intepretation (ie, the Glock 22 is the same except for caliber, and virtually all Glocks are the same basic design).

The Beretta 92 could also be affected if it was determined that it was a semi-auto version of the Beretta 93R.

unlimited4x4
March 14, 2013, 04:18 PM
Just made me real nervous to see that headline. They say that it's the least like of the bills to pass, so the sooner it dies the better for me.

SabbathWolf
March 14, 2013, 04:22 PM
It doesn't ban handguns in general, but it bans handguns which are a semi-auto version of a gun that is available in a full-auto version.

By its specific wording that does ban at least the Glock 17 (semi-auto version of the Glock 18). Other models could also be affected depending on intepretation (ie, the Glock 22 is the same except for caliber, and virtually all Glocks are the same basic design).

The Beretta 92 could also be affected if it was determined that it was a semi-auto version of the Beretta 93R.
Learn something new every day. I was not aware of this at all.
I stand corrected then.
Hopefully this insanity won't even make it out of the senate.
I've been reading where even some of Dems are against the AWB too.

Derry 1946
March 14, 2013, 04:41 PM
His parents were American citizens at the time, so still eligible.

Did someone change Article II Section I when I was not looking? Does Arnold know?

ol' scratch
March 14, 2013, 04:46 PM
The wicked witch of the west, Diane Feinstein's piece of garbage bill passed committee in the Senate. It is time to start writing again. :cuss: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/14/sen-cruz-feinstein-tangle-over-2nd-amendment-as-panel-approves-assault-weapons/

Caliper_RWVA
March 14, 2013, 04:50 PM
You stopped?

-v-
March 14, 2013, 04:53 PM
I say this is a GOOD thing for our side. Why? Because now that it has to be put to a Senate vote (assuming Reid lets it), it'll definitively mark the anti-2A crowd. With as much of a fuss as a lot of the recent legislation has caused, and with as many anti-gunners that are up for re-election in 2014 this should (hopefully) motivate the pro-2A crowd to come to the polls in and push them out of office.

As was mentioned in an other thread, mess with our rights, and the 2A crowd becomes a very determined single issue voter block with very very long memories.

mookiie
March 14, 2013, 05:00 PM
Selective application of constitutional rights sounds awesome...tell me more!

jerkface11
March 14, 2013, 05:04 PM
It needs to go to a vote. Otherwise we have to take them on their word about which side they are on.

coloradokevin
March 14, 2013, 05:13 PM
This stuff is getting old.

primalmu
March 14, 2013, 05:17 PM
We are on the brink. This could be a blessing or a curse. Honestly, its almost better that it did pass committee. That way when it is struck down (as I believe it will be) there will be no doubts, no one saying that it only failed because Reid never let it come to a vote.

Texan Scott
March 14, 2013, 05:18 PM
Ted Cruz is a natural-born US citizen because his parents were citizens. Because they were citizens, the geographic location of his birth is irrelevant to his citizenship. (Think about it- if this were not the case, children born overseas to US military or diplomatic personnel would have no right of return). It would be hilarious to watch the other side of the aisle start its own whacko birther conspiracy group, though. :p

As for the AWB passing the Senate committee along party lines, this is not unexpected or even particularly worrisome. They lack the votes to get it through both houses of Congress.

hso
March 14, 2013, 06:14 PM
"again"?

We have pages of example letters in Activism for folks to adapt and ways for them to identify their Senators and House representatives.

Old Fuff
March 14, 2013, 06:48 PM
The bill, sponsored by Feinstein, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line 10-8 vote and heads next to the floor, where it faces an uphill road.

Exactly the same thing that happened in Colorado. Now it will go for a vote in the whole Senate, and to say the least the outcome should be interesting.

Then it will go to the House of Representatives, where the Chairman of that body's Judiciary Committee says it will never see the light of day. Fortunately the party that controls the Senate doesn't have the same authority in the House.

Hypnogator
March 14, 2013, 06:54 PM
I doubt it will do anything but languish in the Senate. The Dems don't have enough votes to block a filibuster, even if all of them voted to do so. Moreover, there are several Democratic senators who oppose the bill, as well.:evil:

Kudos to Senator Ted Cruz for taking Feinstein to task on her bill. His analogy of the 1st Amendment protecting only some books was spot on!:cool:

Tommygunn
March 14, 2013, 07:14 PM
Kudos to Senator Ted Cruz for taking Feinstein to task on her bill. His analogy of the 1st Amendment protecting only some books was spot on!


No it isn't, because it was faultily applied. The 1st amendment does NOT apply to pornography, hate speech, "fighting words" and the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater."
Feinstein could argue (although again, faultily) that just as the 1st amendment is not absolute, neither is the 2nd. Within the context of the arguement this would nullify Cruz's argument.
The problem is of course the 2nd amendment has that famous clause "shall not be infringed" in it -- which is EXACTLY what Feinstein's law does, regardless of her claim she doesn't touch -- what; two thousand types of guns, or something, and her claim she is some sort of well read expert on the Constitution, which she is most decidedly NOT.

Ehtereon11B
March 14, 2013, 07:14 PM
With people like Feinstein in office, it is never a day to stop.

Akita1
March 14, 2013, 07:46 PM
Here's the link to the nightmare (in PDF):

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=dd2252a0-db96-45cc-96a8-493a2e348c6d

PokeyOkie
March 14, 2013, 07:52 PM
I keep writing but the VA senators are both liberal democrats. I just hope we can put enough pressure to get the point across.

danez71
March 14, 2013, 10:33 PM
No it isn't, because it was faultily applied. The 1st amendment does NOT apply to pornography, hate speech, "fighting words" and the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater."


Actually, the 1st does protect pornography and the reason why it doesnt protect "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is because that infringes on the right to life of others.

Tommygunn
March 14, 2013, 11:10 PM
Actually, the 1st does protect pornography and the reason why it doesnt protect "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is because that infringes on the right to life of others.

The 1st doesn't protect pornography. If you think it does then explain how the prisons contain child pronographers.
As to the yelling of fire in the theater, that is from a quote, IIRC, from Justice Learned Hand. The presumption behind the famous quote is not the perpetrator was trying to save lives, but yelling "fire" falsely to illicit fear and confusion and chaos as the attendees all attempt to flee from a false nonexistant danger.
Rights are limited by the existential ends they're intended to protect, not licenses to commit harm on others.

r1derbike
March 14, 2013, 11:15 PM
The Dems will make Feinstein a sacrificial lamb, so they may push something far more sinister and evil; Universal Background Checks, which Harry Reid will revel in being the lead gestapo commandant. He has been promised the money to make it happen. Anyone want to guess where it's coming from?

Get ready for a dirty, underhanded, and protracted fight from the Obama administration (as if anyone didn't know that already?).

Kiln
March 14, 2013, 11:17 PM
The 2,000+ exempt guns are more than likely things that aren't considered assault weapons anyways.

Hopefully this thing goes to the senate and dies there but I've never been happier to have a republican controlled house.

Cesiumsponge
March 14, 2013, 11:21 PM
The 2,000+ exempt guns are more than likely things that aren't considered assault weapons anyways.

Hopefully this thing goes to the senate and dies there but I've never been happier to have a republican controlled house.

Most of the exempt guns on that list are bolt-action and pump-action firearms. That's the most ridiculous thing of all.

Kiln
March 14, 2013, 11:34 PM
Most of the exempt guns on that list are bolt-action and pump-action firearms. That's the most ridiculous thing of all.
If Feinstein had her way the list would exclusively contain bolt actions and 5 shot revolvers.

danez71
March 14, 2013, 11:37 PM
The 1st doesn't protect pornography. If you think it does then explain how the prisons contain child pronographers.
As to the yelling of fire in the theater, that is from a quote, IIRC, from Justice Learned Hand. The presumption behind the famous quote is not the perpetrator was trying to save lives, but yelling "fire" falsely to illicit fear and confusion and chaos as the attendees all attempt to flee from a false nonexistant danger.
Rights are limited by the existential ends they're intended to protect, not licenses to commit harm on others.


Do a simple google search before you spout off false info as if its fact.

The 1st DOES protect pornography.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pornography-obscenity
There are two types of pornography that receive no First Amendment protection — obscenity and child pornography. The First Amendment generally protects pornography that does not fall into one of these two categories — at least for adult viewers


As far as the 'fire in a crowded theater' example.... I agreed with you that it doesnt.

-v-
March 14, 2013, 11:47 PM
I say good. Force the vote on this in the Senate. The Dem's have quite a few seats up in the air for the mid-terms, and having the anti-gun Dem's flag themselves as such should only do the Pro-2A cause good come 2014. As the old saying goes, keep your mouth closed and keep the wondering, or open your mouth and dispel all doubts. I say, give them all a chance to open their mouths with their vote.

zmoore1991
March 14, 2013, 11:56 PM
The 1st doesn't protect pornography. If you think it does then explain how the prisons contain child pronographers.

It protects pornography, but not "obscenity" (defined as anything patently offensive, appealing to prurient interest, and of no redeeming social value). So basically, if you can somehow show that your porn has some sort of artistic merit and the subject is not just the most disgusting sorts of things possible, then, if not protected, it at least will not be prosecuted.
As far as the second part... keyword, "child"..... How many "regular" pornographers are there in prisons?

And more related to the topic at hand - I think if Feinstein had her way, she would be the only one with a gun. Well, she might let Obama and Biden have some shotguns... maybe.

hotajax
March 14, 2013, 11:59 PM
Totally mute about what side of the fence he's on. Absolute coward for not taking a stand either way. Also, he was a Tea Party pick. Go figure.

Tommygunn
March 15, 2013, 12:03 AM
Do a simple google search before you spout off false info as if its fact.

The 1st DOES protect pornography.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...aphy-obscenity

Quote:
There are two types of pornography that receive no First Amendment protection — obscenity and child pornography. The First Amendment generally protects pornography that does not fall into one of these two categories — at least for adult viewers


From my earlier post:
The 1st doesn't protect pornography. If you think it does then explain how the prisons contain child pronographers.

Is there some mysterious confusion going on here?
Child porno is specifically criminalized because it hurts the youngest amongst us, children who are incapable of protecting themselves.
I will allow others to deal with "obscenity." I mean, I know it when I see it .... but definitions of it can get .... sticky....:scrutiny:

Again:Rights are limited by the existential ends they're intended to protect, not licenses to commit harm on others.


Do you think Playboy magazine is pornography? All I ever saw in it were articles I pretended to have read and photos of naked ladies. They were all adults and I don't recall ever seeing pictures of sex acts.
Some people would think it is porno just because of the naked ladies.

There certainly have been films made by adults which depict graphic sex. They may or may not be harmless and they probably are protected by the first amendment.

Since I was discussing a certain kind of porno which involved prison sentences, can you guess what kind of ..."porno" I was refering to, without going all Clarence Darrow on me?

Old Fuff
March 15, 2013, 12:50 AM
Most of the exempt guns on that list are bolt-action and pump-action firearms. That's the most ridiculous thing of all.

There was (or is) a reason for that, and of all places the cat was let out of the bag in an article written for Bloomberg.org by an attorney that had worked on the previous AWB and had a supporting role in setting up this current one.

They believe that by "protecting" conventional firearms used for hunting or “approved” target shooting, they can split the "sporting" and "tactical" shooters by using a divide and conquer strategy. I don't think it's going to work, and they fail to understand that the tactical community is far more politically active.

Lucifer_Sam
March 15, 2013, 01:54 AM
Well, I read through the bill here are a couple highlights and things I found interesting. The formatting didn't copy over, so some things are gonna look funky. Its too tedious for me to fix all of that right now. I'll bold and italicize stuff from the bill and hopefully make it easier to read, if anyone is interested in doing so.

More than eight years have passed since the federal Assault Weapons Ban
on military-style firearms expired in 2004. Since then, more than 350 people have been killed and more than 450
injured by these weapons.

So that's 350 people killed over 8-9 years. So that's less than lightning which kills about 55 per year. It also doesn't say that there were an increase in the number of people killed by "Assault" rifles after the bill lapsed. I think they would have mentioned that, if there had been.

“Military-style assault weapons have no
purpose but to kill many people quickly,
threatening our communities’ most
public places—from malls and movie
theaters, to schools and street corners.
By taking the basic steps of requiring
every gun buyer to get a background
check, and limiting military style
weapons, we can make our communities
safer—and save many of the 33 people
who are killed with guns each and every
day in America.”
- New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg

Thanks Mike, see above. Looks like you're wrong again.
---------------------------------

Two notable organizations that endorsed the bill :

• American Congress of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists

I guess they're worried about all the sand in the anti's vag.... Oh, wait. I can't say that here.

• Sierra Club

I thought that the Sierra Club was a gun rights organization? At least that's what I've heard on the boards.
------------------------------

There are three linked-to studies cited in the bill. I'm not digging through the second, but the first is misrepresented in the bills summary of it--

The use of assault weapons in crime declined by 70% nine years after the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
took effect, according to a study conducted for the Justice Department

Here's what the linked to study says:

• AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.

• Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

•The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of
assault pistols (APs), which are used in
crime more commonly than assault rifles
(ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments
are complicated by the rarity of crimes
with these weapons and by substitution of
post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

So, there might have been a small decrease (I'll go low end with 19%, since the bill goes high end at 70%) in 2% of crimes where someone used a Draco, assuming that the study is any good. And as far as I've read in that study there are no claims that there was any actual reduction of crime, just that there were a few less stolen Dracos used in hold ups.

And isn't that a ridiculously large range? 17% to 72%? Thats pretty odd onto itself. Maybe they picked this one b/c it was one of the only ones that had a number that high.

The third study just has this as its summary:

When Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55% drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.

Ok. Thats... shocking?

So, thats the best they can do to try to link assault weapons and crime. Nice.
----------------------------------

Just for fun, heres a description of a WASR

ROMARM WASR-10 AK-47
•Used in several mass shootings including a workplace in St. Louis in 2010 and a mall in Omaha, Neb., in 2007.
•Romanian-made variant of most widely used assault weapon in the world.
•Comes with a 30-round ammunition magazine.
•“Weapon of choice” for cross-border gun traffickers.
•Some models are available with a collapsible stock to facilitate concealability, a feature highly desired by international drug cartels

Heh, profits are also a feature highly desired by drug cartels. I thereby condemn corporate America as being similar to drug cartels.

Ok, I just previewed this thing and its gigantic. I'm going to stop typing now.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 15, 2013, 04:33 AM
It looks like they lack the votes to even get it through the Senate right now... There is no way they have the 60 votes needed for cloture... There are 55 Dems and 45 Republicans

On the Dem side, Mark Begich and Mark Pryor are already saying "No" to a new AWB. Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Tim Johnson, Joe Manchin, all remain uncomitted.

On the Republican side, only Mark Kirk appears to be supporting the AWB, with Susan Collins uncommitted still.

It looks to me like there is a decent chance they won't even get 50 votes in the Senate for a new AWB. Of course, a lot of that depends on whether the uncommitted Senators think they can get away with hosing their constituents (as Max Baucus did in 1994). Apparently, the heat was enough that Mark Pryor, who voted for AWB renewal in 2004, has decided not to support it this time through. IF we can keep the heat on, I think the AWB will lose even a simple majority vote.

Of course, the bad news is there are much worse gun bills than S. 150 coming up for a vote. S. 374 is going to make us all felons if it passes - and it is considered to have a better chance of passing.

kwguy
March 15, 2013, 06:40 AM
That bill is ridiculous, and dangerous. It's ridiculous to anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever about firearms, but it's dangerous, because many people do not have such knowledge, and simply do not care about "these sorts of things", to include politicians. That's what makes it dangerous, because they could enact this stuff.

I'm embarassed for us to see the kinds of politicians that "we the people" have elected into office, that could come up with such a ridiculous piece of junk as this proposed legislation, and that many think it's a great idea. The bill is based on junk non-logic and sneaky hyperbole, and depends upon ignorance and emotion to make it come to pass as law.

We have to keep fighting this stuff. Watching this stuff unfold, and listening to people like Feinstein and her "imploding bullets" is like watching the movie "Idiocracy".

DSling
March 15, 2013, 08:54 PM
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/03/democrats-raise-cash-off-ted-cruz-gun-control-lecture-of-dianne-feinstein.html/
[She] "became mayor of San Francisco after Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone were shot and killed in City Hall. She saw their bullet-riddled bodies. She broke the news to the public. She has sat on the Senate Judiciary Committee for twenty years. Cruz decided he needed to give her a lecture to explain the Constitution and guns. Republican Joe Scarborough gave a fierce and impassioned response to Cruz

DSling
March 15, 2013, 09:23 PM
I didn't know she had out so bad.

"Sen. Barbara Feinstein took her lesson from Hillary Clinton this week. (Remember Clinton getting indigent and avoiding questions about Benghazi,

kwguy
March 15, 2013, 09:43 PM
She (Feinstein) feels that seeing people who were killed (Milk) gives her some special priviledge and insight into being able to trample on the rights of other people. She tries to use that to shut down arguments that others may bring up (like Cruz). She is wrong. NONE of that makes her an expert.

She is clearly NOT an expert on her 20 year "passion" against assault weapons. It's clear she is totally ignorant on the subject, so why would we expect her ability to understand the constitution and intent of the second amendment to be any different?

She is a selfish, self centered person who is a personification of Captain AHAB, chasing her own white whale.

gc70
March 15, 2013, 11:46 PM
We should hope that S.150 gets a vote in the Senate - and quickly. The vote count appears in our favor right now, but if another tragedy occurred while S.150 was still pending, the emotions of the moment might result in its enactment.

By its specific wording that does ban at least the Glock 17 (semi-auto version of the Glock 18).

The G18 was reportedly designed to avoid the prohibitions that many countries have on semi-automatic versions of fully-automatic weapons. As I understand it, the rails on a G18 are different from those on a G17, so that frames and slides from the two models will not interchange, and many of the fire control parts on a G18 will not interchange with a G17.

Zoogster
March 15, 2013, 11:59 PM
I think it would be ironic if it banned the Ruger mini-14, the semi auto version of the AC556.
The most common semi auto 5.56/.223 that avoided the first ban in standard configuration.

A large number of firearms common are semi auto versions of a full auto, though most think of the AR-15 and AK variants.
And such wording could also ultimately give a lot of discretion to who is doing the interpreting of what something is a version of an how much difference is required to not be a version of.

For example one may say the Glock 17 is a semi auto version of the Glock 18 (or not because of intentional differences), but most Glocks can interchange a percentage of parts, so are they not all a semi auto version of a full auto? Who draws the line and where in deciding the level of difference to not be a version of something would have a lot of power.
Such things typically become the domain of the ATF through power given to the Secretary or Attorney General which in turn let the ATF deal with it.

gc70
March 16, 2013, 12:04 AM
I think it would be ironic if it banned the Ruger mini-14, the semi auto version of the AC556.

Shhhhh... The "Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock)" is on the list of specifically exempted guns.

Zoogster
March 16, 2013, 12:33 AM
Well similarly the M1A as a semi auto version of the M14 (they even used the stocks with the selector switch cutout for many years.)


Even less common firearms without a big presence would be even more vulnerable and unlikely to have an exemption.




Calling reps and action in the Senate is really important because things are a lot closer there.
The House is where support for passage of such legislation would have the toughest time.
The President obviously would sign anything.
So two out of three...
If we can keep it down to one out of three that is much better.

gym
March 16, 2013, 09:43 AM
Fienstein is like the people who thought the earth was flat, because they never bothered to go past their village to find out more about it. Hit the S&W ad on the advertisers banner to send them another email. It will send it for you to the appropriate parties. Barrett also joined in on the boycott of NY I believe

mcdonl
March 16, 2013, 10:02 AM
I will email and setup a call with Collins ASAP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SHR970
March 16, 2013, 01:17 PM
I won't bother......

I have Senator's Boxer and Feinstein; we know I would just be wasting stamps. Their records are clear and there is no way to change their minds on this subject.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Federal Assault Weapons Ban made it out of committee. It is time to start writing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!