Quantcast

And so it starts ... HR 1022 ... to Reauthorize Fed AW Ban

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 30 cal slob, Feb 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Green Lantern

    Green Lantern Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,665
    No, it's like someone already said...

    A vote for Kerry WOULD mean a new AWB, 100% chance (unless there was a leftest and RINO-free congress as well)

    A vote for Bush MIGHT mean a new AWB.

    A vote for a third party, in the last election at least? Would have been a vote for either of the above. Too much like a flip of a coin for my tastes.

    With Hillary and Obama :barf: and McCain and Guliani :barf :barf: getting on opposite sides of the ring in 08....

    We NEED a STRONG-PRO-2A third party candidate!

    Go Ron Paul! Heck, go Michael Savage, if that's what it takes to WAKE UP the Republican Party and tell the RINOs to get smart or get OUT! Because:

    is 100% the truth! Not EVERY Republican is a RINO (my Rep, Patrick McHenry would never vote for this AWB), but when our senior leadership (like Bush) is...:uhoh:

    You are quite right, and I was saying the exact same thing after the elections. We need to figureatively "bury the hatchet" in the ANTI'S heads, not each others'! :evil:

    Though when I said that, everyone who said they'd vote for Democrats because they were "scared" of gun control and wouldn't bring it up til/if they won the White House hadn't been proven dead wrong at the time either...:p

    And hey....maybe, just maybe, they still HAVEN'T. Maybe the "blue dogs" like Heath Shuler will come to our rescue and layeth the smacketh down on this bill, and live up to their "moderate" campaign promises....

    If that happens, and happens EVERY time the far-left Dems try more gun control...then I'LL eat crow.
     
  2. Kaylee

    Kaylee Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,749
    Location:
    The Last Homely House
    Which is why they were leaning on Congress (and urging us to do the same) to scuttle Craig's lawsuit protection bill a couple years ago when Feinstein and company tacked the original AWB extension on it.

    They may not be perfect, but they're on the side of the angels in this one. And their (recent) past activity does indicate they're willing to go to bat for EBRs.

    Not that it's a bad idea to harass the congresscritters on our own. :D
     
  3. rocinante

    rocinante Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    Alpharetta GA
  4. Thin Black Line

    Thin Black Line Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,213
    Location:
    Amerikan Twilight Zone
    Quite frankly this has never been the norm throughout human history. You
    do have to fight in life --no one is going to give you anything save for
    the rare holy man and half of them are wolves in sheep's clothing as well.

    If you ever have the blessing of finding a real shepherd in this life, it is coming
    to the time when you will have to protect him.

    Are you telling me that the big gun groups --espeically the NRA-- didn't have
    a rep burning up the phone lines to them that same day, faxing them a covert
    draft of the legislation, and that there wasn't a huge emergency meeting at
    NRA HQ?

    Interesting.....now your doctor can be a spy for the State. Like I said earlier,
    protect your shepherd since at this point he is the only person who will be
    exempted from that!

    I completely believe that is how Bush would attempt to play that off and how
    repubs could "excuse" it to their base. But, let's put this into some context:
    Bush is the "decider" and doesn't have to listen to anyone on the Hill when it
    comes to not changing course on Iraq and keeps doing what he wants to do,
    but he would have to give in and sign a new AWB. Yeah, that's exactly
    how that would go down. I have no doubt about it. Fits in perfectly.

    This definition debate that we play among ourselves is completely irrelevant
    to everyone inside the DC beltway greenzone whose longterm goal is the
    complete destruction of the 2A.
     
  5. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    I hate to ruin a good "Big Brother" is peeking at you from every corner rant; but McCarthy's legislation only affects people who were adjudicated mentally incompetent. This means that a court found them too mentally ill to accept responsibility for their actions. It requires a determination by a judge and even voluntary commitment to a mental institution is not enough to meet the standard. McCarthy's bill provides additional funding so states can computerize these records so they can be made available to the NICS check. Your personal medical records are quite safe from this bill since it is the court records showing a finding of mental incompetence that are important.

    I realize actually reading a bill and understanding it BEFORE commenting on it is mot de passe these days; but THR loses a lot of value as an RKBA resource when its members pass on rumor and speculation instead of reliable information.
     
  6. AndyC

    AndyC Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,581
    Location:
    DFW, TX
     
  7. yahkohb

    yahkohb Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    24
    Just to clarify, since it hasn't been necessarily obvious from this thread: McCarthy has introduced TWO firearms-related bills.

    HR 1022, titled "To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.". Can't find any text on this yet.

    HR 297, titled "To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes." The full text is available on the thomas.loc.gov server.

    ETA summary of HR 297 from thomas.loc.gov:

    SUMMARY AS OF:
    1/5/2007--Introduced.

    NICS Improvement Act of 2007 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to require: (1) the head of each federal agency that has records relating to persons for whom receipt of a firearm would violate federal or state law to provide that information to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); (2) the agency, upon being made aware that the basis under which a record was made available no longer applies, to correct the record and notify the Attorney General; and (3) the Secretary of Homeland Security to make available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination that a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm and information about a change in such person's status for removal from NICS, where appropriate.

    Directs the Attorney General to make grants to: (1) states and Indian tribal governments to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations; and (2) states for use by the state court system to improve the automation and transmittal to federal and state record repositories of criminal history dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments.

    Requires: (1) the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to study and evaluate NICS operations and to report annually to Congress and to specified states regarding best practices; and (2) the Comptroller General to conduct an audit of the expenditure of all funds appropriated for criminal records improvement to determine how the funds were expended.
     
  8. p8riot

    p8riot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Chesterfield, Va
    My letter to my Congressman, who is on the House Judiciary Committee

    Congressman Forbes,

    I recognize that you have been a friend of Virginia (and American) gun owners for a long time. Therefore I would like to bring your attention to HR 1022 which re-authorizes the Clinton "Assault Weapons" ban. You know that this ban was based purely upon the "cosmetic resemblance" of commercially available weapons to military weapons and had absolutely "no effect on crime." As one of your constituents, I would like to be able to count on your vote against this bill when it reaches the House Judiciary Committee, as it is nothing more than an infringement upon our 2nd Amendment rights.

    Thank you, and best regards,
     
  9. captain obvious

    captain obvious Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    436
    Location:
    Fairfax County VA (Wolf's district NOT Moran's) -
    I am SOOO sick of this nonsense - dammit, it's bad enough the .gov steals money via taxes, now I have to buy guns I can't afford too:cuss:
     
  10. lesjones

    lesjones Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Knoxville, TN
    AndyC:

    "I swear, its as if the monkeys on the high road never took a basic high school government class."

    Just to be clear, that was a statement made in comments on my blog, and not by me.
     
  11. nico

    nico Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,212
    Location:
    Baltimore/Laurel, MD
    It is perfectly relevant. There is no "definition debate" as the term "assault rifle" was coined during the second World War to refer to a specific group of select-fire rifles. The antis intentionally use terms (ie: assault weapon, weapons of war) that make the uneducated think they're talking about fully automatic guns, which are functionally different than semi-autos. Whether the NFA or FOPA were unconstitutional is beside the point, because neither of them has anything to do with guns covered under any AWB. To ignore the fact that the average person sees an M16 a lot differently than they see a Remington 7400 (because they should both be legal), is ignoring reality, and we do ourselves a disservice when we use terminology that makes an AR15 sound more similar to an M16 than a 7400.

    I have an idea: instead of arguing amongst ourselves about who is to blame for bills like this, how about everyone write a civilized (meaning save the vitriol for THR) letter to their rep voicing your displeasure at the bill and why it should be killed? And, for those of us whose reps are gun grabbers or on the fence, using logic in your argument is probably a better tactic than going with the Constitutional angle, since if they believed the 2nd Amendment meant what it says, they would be pro-gun.
     
  12. Thin Black Line

    Thin Black Line Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,213
    Location:
    Amerikan Twilight Zone
    Whew, good to know that the only non-gov profession peeking at me is still just
    my banker. I'm indebted to you for reminding me that such clarifying details
    negate their long-term objectives.

    That's right --all of us here should know what it means. Outside of this place
    we have little control to educate when it comes to language. You and I are
    not going to pick who goes on CNN for the next gun control debate.
     
  13. saltydog

    saltydog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    From The Free State of Okla
    "I am one of those people, and I still believe that Bush doesn't want a ban and was just saying so to appease moderates."'

    Wouldn't that be calling Bush a liar. I thought he was a man of his word.
     
  14. tulsamal

    tulsamal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    801
    Location:
    Vinita, OK
    First, disclosure. I tend to vote a straight Republican ticket. So I'm no apologist for the Democrats. But a lone voice here and there introducing bills with little chance of actually becoming law isn't really the same as the Democratic leadership pushing them forward. If the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate make a new AWB a legislative priority, then it will be time to run around in circles. Wackos will be wackos and some bad bills get reintroduced every legislative session. Including some from the conservative side. Let's the legislator go home and say, "I introduced a bill..."

    Keep a close eye on everything but don't overreact. I'm stuck with a Democratic Representative myself (Boren) but I would be very surprised to see him vote for any anti-gun bills. The NRA gave him an A ranking. His Dad certainly never hurt us and he was a Democrat as well.

    I can rarely bring myself to vote for a Democrat but I TRY really hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. If there is an election with an A rated Democrat and a C rated Republican, I'll vote Democratic. Once enough Democrats realize there really is a "cause and effect" in play with gun control bills, we will have less problems from moderate Democrats. The far left isn't going to change any more than the far right. I don't mind hearing them howl as long as their ideas have no chance of becoming law.

    And why bring up DeWine? I cheered that he lost. Wonderful. I cheered that Chafee lost. Both of them were in elections that match what I just said above. The Democratic challenger was rated higher by the NRA than the Republican. I'm not voting for any F rated politician no matter WHAT party label is next to his name!!

    Well, I've got a B.A. and M.A. in PolSc. I've taught PolSc 1113 (American Government) for years at the university level. First at OU in Norman and then at RSC in Claremore. I'm ABD on my Ph.D. in Pol Sc. I'll put my political science credentials up for comparison to our critics. I know they want to ASSUME that we are all knuckle dragging droolers that listen to Rush every day but I must disappoint them.

    Gregg
     
  15. SaMx

    SaMx Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,064
    Location:
    back and forth between PA and VA
  16. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,411
    Location:
    Texas
    But it's all part of GUN-control. not AW-control, not 50-cal control, not "select-fire"-control. I should just be able to say, "I'm buying a gun this weekend" and then be able to come back home with a brand new $400 select-fire mac ten, tax free, no stupid NICS.
     
  17. Thin Black Line

    Thin Black Line Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,213
    Location:
    Amerikan Twilight Zone
    Take it one more step Prince Y, it's call people-control.
     
  18. scurtis_34471

    scurtis_34471 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,014
    Location:
    Ocala, FL
    My Congressman, Ric Keller, is on Judiciary Committee. I just sent him an e-mail, but I'm not particularly worried about his vote. He's a Republican with an A NRA rating.
     
  19. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,756
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    No, we need a "STRONG-PRO-2A" GOP or DNC candidate because the next president is either going to be a Republican or a Democrat (and we know the likelyhood of a pro-2A Democrat at that level is not likely ... except for the slight chance that Bill Richardson will be their candidate).

    All a strong-pro-2A 3rd party candidate will do is siphon votes from whomever the GOP candidate is thus assuring that the likely staunchly anti-2A Democrat will be there to sign gun control laws and apoint anti-2A judges.


    Now if we end up with Rudy or McCain as the GOP candidate (and Bill Richardson isn't the Dem) we're pretty much screwed ... time to either start burying the guns or using them.

    If I have the choice of voting for Rudy or McCain against Richardson I may actually vote for a DemocRAT for the first time in my life (I feel dirty even typing that).
     
  20. jcjacobvt

    jcjacobvt Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    120
    NRA Ratings Do Not mean Squat

    ExGovernor Howard Dean now the Democrat National Committee Leader in all the races that he had while he was running for re-election for Governor had a NRA A rating.

    Reason being, he felt firearm laws hould be enacted from a Federal level and not started at a State level. The so called NRA rating helped him beat many good men and women from unsitting him from Governor because their NRA rating was unknown.

    So in the eyes of the NRA a A rated person is someone whom can answer their questionaire in the correct way not to really tip their hand.

    NRA would sent out letters prior to State elections that would actually rate Howard Dean as the one to voted for using this rating.

    Worked great for Howard, how do you like him now.... right up there with Hillary..
     
  21. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    For the record, that statement is incorrect.

    In fact, what Dean said was exactly the opposite: That states should devise their own gun legislation. Here is a quote from his staff on the issue:

    Dean spokesman Eric Schmeltzer said the candidate supports many federal gun laws on the books, but believes "the people of each state should be able to decide how much gun control they want in their states."

    Revisionist history is unacceptable no matter from which side of the aisle it comes.
     
  22. Master Blaster

    Master Blaster Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,072
    Location:
    Delaware home of tax free shopping
    Generally one finds that name calling is the refuge of folks with lower than average intelligence, and a poor self image. Best to ignore folks who resort to belittling others in order to feel better about themselves. :)
     
  23. nico

    nico Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,212
    Location:
    Baltimore/Laurel, MD
    I agree. But anyone who thinks that's actually going to happen any time soon is completely divorced from reality. If you don't think that allowing antis to blur the line between an M16 and an AR15 is bad for our cause, I don't know what to tell you.:confused:

    It may seem insignificant, but I can think of a handful of people whose opinions I have changed on guns through nothing more than educating them on the facts (and showing them that the AWB had nothing to do with assault rifles). One of them went from having the typical blissninny "I can't say why I don't like guns; I just don't" attitude to thinking about getting a CCW. I also know that she's opened the eyes of at least a few other people about gun control too. Maybe it doesn't matter, but it sure didn't hurt our cause to teach those people that "assault weapons" are not "assault rifles," and the distinction helped me make my case.
     
  24. ccarnel

    ccarnel Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    When I called the NRA ILA via their contact number a gentleman answered the phone who despite telling him repeatedly that this was a 110th congress bill insisted that it was a 109th congressional bill. He said that he had heard talk about that senator trying to reintroduce the bill this year but had not heard anything yet.

    When I called the second amendment foundation/keepandbeararms.com the gentleman who answered the phone said he was a member here on THR.org and said he had not seen anything about it on THR.org the morning I had called. I told him that this thread had been posted here not an hour before I called. He again acted as if he had not heard of the bill

    Last, I tried to call the GOA and no one answered and instead there was some recording stating that no one was available secondary to lots of snow and inclement weather.

    To answer your question, when I called the morning this thread had been created no one had heard of the bill or were trying to hide it from me that they knew? All I can do is tell you what had happened. Sorry but i'm not one to inflate stories or make things up.
     
  25. trbon8r

    trbon8r Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Messages:
    863
    Location:
    MD
    I read you loud and clear sir.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice