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

Status
Not open for further replies.
unlimited4x4

unlimited4x4

Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
236
Senate COMMITTEE votes for AWB

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.
 
unlimited4x4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Last edited:
Didn't the bill basically say a 10-round magazine limit on anything detachable?
 
Yes. There is a 10-round limit proposal on mags, but that doesn't ban handguns.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
mgmorden said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
"again"?

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

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.
 
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:
 
Hypnotgator said:
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!
Click to expand...


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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top