H.R. 1022 - AWB II - What is in it? - Updated 2/23 on Page 6

[jpk1md]

This bill is essentially a weather vane for 2A Issues IMHO.

Should this bill go all the way and become law prior to the 2008 Presidential Election/Congressional Elections there are possible unforseen consequences...specifically disenfranchised/bitter voters that abandon Bluedog Pro 2A Dems and Republican Candidates and vote Independent/Libertarian in record numbers as they feel that there is little more to lose by not supporting a marginal candidate like Ghouliani/McCain just to block a Dem.

It could possibly leave us with a larger number on 3rd Party Leaders in Congress and a very unpredictable Presidential Election....Likely the Reds would lose the most in the Executive race but we could make up 2A Independents in Congress.

Maybe I'm just overly hopeful but I truly believe that we need viable third party candidates as the Red and Blues are increasingly the same party.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

My wife is a Democrat, and her main political issue is abortion rights. I've got no opinion one way or another on that, except that I generally despise human animals of any age and think fewer of the filthy critters is always better than more of them. Since our children are grown and we're in the grandparent stage of life now, abortion is not an issue that affects me. Gun rights, however, affect me a great deal, and they are a deciding factor in how I vote. At dinner tonight my wife brought up the topic of abortion rights. I told her that if the damned Democrats would get over their irrational fear of guns, I'd consider voting for some of her candidates, but until that happened, the Democratic party would force a large number of us to vote against their candidates.

If the Democrats show themselves to have genuinely abandoned their misguided, Utopian, delusional campaign against guns, they may attract quite a few of our votes. But they'll have to prove themselves first.

 

[nobody_special]

Bringing this over from another (now closed) HR1022 thread...

So... Now that its got co-sponsors is this actionable under 18 U.S.C. 241?

18 USC 241 (emphasis added):

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Matthew N. Dodd, I like the way you think.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So... Now that its got co-sponsors is this actionable under 18 U.S.C. 241?

Well, in most of the circuits, you have no Second Amendment right to bear arms there because they believe the right is a collective one. So first you would have to file in the only circuit that recognizes an individual right (the 5th Circuit). Since these are criminal charges. You would need a prosecutor somewhere to bring the charges, which seems unlikely to me.

From a practical perspective, you would have the Judicial branch ordering the Executive branch to arrest two sitting members of the Legislative branch and imprison/fine them based on the Judicial branch's interpretation of the Constitution. This would be the equivalent of open warfare amongst the three branches of our government and would have serious effects way beyond the Second Amendment. It would also open the door for political abuse on a widespread level (like say ordering pro-life legislators arrested because of the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey). I just don't see it ever happening in any context and certainly not a controversial one like the 2A.

I also think it is probably a good thing. The Constitution was deliberately left rather vague so it could pass ratification. If you allowed the same branch that decides whether or not something is Constitutional to order the arrest of members of the remaining two branches, you have created a ruling board of nine justices and killed a democracy.

It is an interesting subject; but let's start a different thread for it if we are going to continue this conversation. I don't want this thread to get off topic or too unwieldly.

 

[Matt King]

Clear as mud?

Yes. Thank you for the informative response. So basically we are just waiting for the committee to vote on this.

 

[Vermonter]

It all comes down to POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Tell that to your dem friends.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish the dems would drop the anti-gun stance. I won't vote for them until they do.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JLStorm]

are you guys writing your state reps about this yet, or are you waiting until it comes closer to the time when they will vote on it?

 

[Matt King]

H.R. 1022 just got six more Cosponsors:

Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - Democrat
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - Democrat
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - Democrat
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - Democrat
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - Democrat
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - Democrat

 

[JLStorm]

ok much more scared now that these co sponsers have come out of the wood work...especially from FL and AZ which are usually pretty gun friendly.

 

[nigmalg]

Well.. I see my rep has joined the co-sponsors. I did in fact try and contact him and received no response at all. I try and have a good attitude about it, but I do realize a non-canned response from his posse wouldn't be probable

If all goes well with the latest in D.C. and abroad, he and others like him will be exposed for supporting a clearly unconstitutional bill. I'd like to say he's signing his own job away.

 

[tsteven1]

Keep up the great and informative work, gunners. I've already sent a notecard to my Dem. Rep. over HR 1022. Proud AR 15 owner.

 

[glennv]

I know this is a stretch but here goes.

Many of us live in places where our reps are either flat out anti-gun or pro-gun. No letter or email will make a bit of difference. It's the districts with the fence sitters that matter. But maybe we can influence anti-gun reps by having all of us contact them. I can't vote for a rep in NJ but I can donate money to their opposition next election season.

Problem is we need to organize on these sites and drop the daydreaming threads about building a "SHTF' rifles and tactical situations that will never happen. (ie. mall ninja threads)

Look at CA and MA. Tons of gun owners and it seems that they can't stop any anti-legislation. Most gun owners are lazy so even if this doesn't pass this year it WILL pass eventually.

 

[briansp82593]

i need to hurry up and buy some more guns and a retarded question... are revolvers going to be banned?

 

[jpk1md]

Brain, you need to send your letter FIRST and then go buy more guns

This bill needs to be fought....no rolling over folks.

 

[kcmarine]

Time to pay him back for all those campaign calls...

Well.. I see my rep has joined the co-sponsors. I did in fact try and contact him and received no response at all. I try and have a good attitude about it, but I do realize a non-canned response from his posse wouldn't be probable

If all goes well with the latest in D.C. and abroad, he and others like him will be exposed for supporting a clearly unconstitutional bill. I'd like to say he's signing his own job away.

Flood his office with letters, emails, phone calls, faxes, whatever. Make every other letter he reads from a consituent be from you, and on this issue. Hell, if he couldn't give you a moment of peace at dinnertime during election season, then you shouldn't give him a moment of peace in his quest to deny you a god- given right.

 

[Thin Black Line]

are you guys writing your state reps about this yet, or are you waiting until it comes closer to the time when they will vote on it?

As we get closer I would suggest a friendly reminder to them about the reps
who lost their seats as a result of their vote on the 94 ban.

I went to a town meeting of about 100 ppl w/ our Congressional rep pre-94 and
was the only person who brought up the AWB legislation (it had not been voted
on yet). The majority of the people there were senior citizens whose questions
indicated that they were very worried about their social security checks keeping
up with inflation and how well medicare was going to cover them. You can not
imagine the bewildered looks from them when I brought this up and not as in
"omigosh this is a terrible infringement", but more like "what does this have to
do with anything."

The rep stated there "were enough gun control laws on the books already"
and didn't feel adding another was going to make any difference on crime, etc.
I figured that was that and this rep must really understand the local culture
and have a finger on the pulse of the country folk who made up a majority
of the district outside its one "major" city.

But lo and behold the rep later voted for the AWB citing it as a matter of
"good conscience" and "keeping America safe" blah blah. That rep was voted
out of office in the next election with exit polls showing that the AWB vote
was a major factor.

When I look back I really wished there had been more people at that meeting who
could have chimed in on the issue. Instead the "silent majority" waited till it
was too late and stood around post-94 with bewildered "how did this happen?!"
looks.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Well in my district, nothing but NRA-member republican reps so I probably have little to worry about.

I think the "Iraq debate" might silence this issue on AWB II somewhat - but the main point is - how gun friendly is McCarthy's district? Maybe they havent been awakened yet, but she has to go...she is the number 1 threat to our rights atm.

 

[PILMAN]

Where are you guys seeing the cosponsors? I know the sticky at the top lists them but on the website it doesn't say there are any cosponsors

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Govtrack does not update as frequently as http://thomas.loc.gov/ (which is also available in a link from the THR Library in the upper right hand corner). Thomas is updated on at least a daily basis. The downside to Thomas is it generates temporary links to bills, so you cannot post a link from Thomas because it expires too soon.

 

[PILMAN]

After the Brady Bill was written up, how long did it take to pass and actually go into effect?

 

[cracked junior]

Got a letter from Representative Adrian Smith, Ne

I sent Rep. of Nebraska Adrian Smith a email last month about HR 1022.
Tonight when I got home from work. Had a letter from him.

I dont like typing so I'm only going to post part of his letter.

In short He says-

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. As a member of the NRA and Congressional Second Amendment Caucus, I will work with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to promote legistlation protecting our constitutional rights and fighting legislation that would restrict such rights.

As you may know, the Assualt Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act(H.R. 1022) was recently introduced in the House of Representatives. This measure would authorize an assualt weapon ban, and place tight restrictions on the use of automatic weapons. Restricting law abiding citizens, however, will not deter criminals from breaking the law, and I remain concerned of the precedents this measure sets for the future policy.

Again, thank you for contacting me; please do so in the future if I may be of assistance.

 

[Specksmark]

3rd Party Candidate.

A third party candidate will only throw the election to a liberal Democrat, Obama or Clinton. Gun rights candidates attract conservatives so the loss would be to the Republican.

Nader was a basic liberal and he drew votes from Gore. Perot was a basic conservative and it cost Bush #1 the election. We wound up with Clinton and the 94 AWB Ban. Yes we gained the congress in the next vote but for ten years we suffered with the ban thanks to Perot swinging the election to Clinton. If you want a liberal Democrat then by all means support a third party .

GlenV is correct. It is best to petition the ,"Fence Sitters" because it is their votes that will determine the outcome of the vote.

Further: When you write letters to your representatives please leave the snide remarks out They may sound clever to some but to an anti-gun politician it will only make him or her more determined to oppose us. Nobody takes kindly to an insult even if it is true.

 

[hotsauce]

That guy sounds alright.

 

[vis-à-vis]

If you want a liberal Democrat then by all means support a third party .

I know you're just trying to be pragmatic, but we will never have anything more than a lousy two party system with that kind of voting. I'm tired of it and nothing is going to change unless I do something different.

 

[ctdonath]

are you guys writing your state reps

Already wrote to the closest rep. While the one GA rep on the committee isn't technically mine, I still wrote, acknowledging his position as GA's only rep thereon, and still making it clear that whichever way he leans it's a bad bill.

Do what we can to keep the monstrosity from getting out of committee. The farther it gets, the harder it will be to stop.