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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Nobody Special:
It's not the liberal Democrats, and you do many people (and your own cause) a disservice by blaming them. Government is about control. The republicans are just as bad... consider that the Republican congress and president signed the Patriot acts, the detainee bill, and a host of other legislation designed to remove freedoms (including removal of posse comitatus). And our great Decided has openly stated that he would welcome another AWB.

If you blame liberals, you run the risk of alienating libertarian liberals such as myself who have strong feelings in support of individual freedom and civil liberties, including the RKBA.

He hit the nail right on the head. Instead of voting for the Constitution party you might consider the Libertarian party. The Constitution party is very much a corp of rightwingers trying to enforce their religious beliefs under the guise of freedom.
 
I've said this maybe 100 times or more, but we are not in a battle between right and left, Democrat and Republican, socialist and capitalist; we are in a battle between liberty and tyranny, and all of the above groups are lousy with tyrants.
 
I just got off the phone with Gene Taylor's (MS-D) office.

This is not a direct quote, but I think you'll get the gist of what was said:


We (Gene Taylor is a life-LONG supporter of RKBA and NRA member) as gun owners have a tough row to hoe...

A lot of the Democrats elected are anti-gun. The Republicans are no better--most likely they'll be running Gulliani and he is VERY anti-gun.

A lot of folks are after guns and specifically military-style ones due to recent news.

However, Gene Taylor will oppose ANY and ALL legislation that limits gun ownership or controls them in any way.

A lot of people are only interested in sporting style firearms and don't fight for military style ones...

However, the 2nd Amendment is not there for sporting purposes.


I think his office gets it. And it also seems that he paints an ugly picture of the climate in D.C. right now.


John
 
Congressman Buck McKeon will be visiting the campus where I work today.
Perhaps if I see him I can squeeze in a word or two about HR 1022. :)
 
HEADS UP!

A constituent of Rep. John Boehner (GOA-rated A- OH-8 Republican) reported on AR15.com that Boehner's office told him that H.R. 1022 does have the necessary sponsorship to get out of Committee and that Boehner expects the bill to pass the House.

Time to pour it on if your Representative is on the House Judiciary Committee and if not, time to start prepping your Representatives to oppose this bill at every turn if it makes it out of Committee.
 
Remember, you guys all said Bush was just playing politics when he said he would sign a new AWB.
Middle of the road politics, I expect he'll sign it should it reach his desk. It'll be interesting to watch. Meanwhile, I've already got the guns I need.
 
I've said this maybe 100 times or more, but we are not in a battle between right and left, Democrat and Republican, socialist and capitalist; we are in a battle between liberty and tyranny...

Hey, at least we're armed.:D
 
So much for "nothing" happening over the next two years like some thought.

Indeed not only far earlier than expected, but I'm still slightly stunned that they are going straight for an all out 'assault weapon' type ban.
I anticipated a .50 bmg ban first- which would likely have been far easier & met with less opposition. Perhaps as a prelude to a new AWB...
 
I dont know if this has been posted yet, but here is a link to e-mail all of the judiciary committee:

http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/02/easy-way-to-contact-house-judiciary.html

Here's my letter:
I was angered to hear about the recent proposal (HR 1022) to take away one of my rights as an American. Havent you, in Washington, learned that laws are only obeyed by honest Americans? Criminals could care less how many weapons laws you pass, they're criminals for Gods sake; they're not going to obey them. This whole bill is just another step in the dissarmament of the American population, and takes it one step closer to a draconian state. The second ammendment is not about hunting, it has never been about hunting. It is, however, about freedom. Something, apparently, our politicians know nothing about.
 
This was my email to the committee.

The Committee,
I'm writing to express my opposition to HR 1022, as well as any and all weapons bans in the US, current, future, or past. I have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. Any supporter of this bill is supporting a blatant civil rights violation, and supporting further degredation of the Constitution and the People of these United States.
I will continue to serve as sworn, and I call upon The Committee to do the same.
Very Respectfully,
XXXXXX H XXXX
Virginia Beach, VA


Please write them.
 
A constituent of Rep. John Boehner (GOA-rated A- OH-8 Republican) reported on AR15.com that Boehner's office told him that H.R. 1022 does have the necessary sponsorship to get out of Committee and that Boehner expects the bill to pass the House.

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

Still says "no cosponsors." Boehner wouldn't play politics with this, would he?
 
I knew plenty of you would take the Constitutional approach, so I went with a different argument. I figure it can't hurt to hit this from multple angles.

Dear Members of the House Judiciary Committee,

I am very disturbed by the contents of H.R. 1022, which severely curtails the Constitutional rights of millions while doing virtually nothing to stop crime. The Clinton “Assault Weapon” Ban did nothing to reduce the crime rate. Furthermore, less than 2% of gun crimes are carried out with rifles. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. Before you vote to send this bill to the House, consider what it will realistically accomplish. I will not “keep guns off our streets.” It will not disarm criminals. It will not make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns by illegal means. The only thing it will do is deprive citizens of the hunting and home defense rifles that have been legal and available for over 100 years.

Those of you who are not familiar with firearms may not realize exactly what this bill bans. Most of the weapons covered by this bill are commonly used for hunting and target shooting. Some of them use designs that are well over 50 years old. The M1 Carbine has been a popular hunting rifle for decades. My stepfather uses one for deer hunting. The fact that it was once used by the military is neither here nor there. Many of the guns on your list are both too large for concealment and too expensive for most criminals to afford. Most crimes are committed with cheap throw-away guns, not $1500 AR-15 rifles. I should also point out that anyone with a criminal record cannot legally guy one anyway. In short, this bill targets weapons that are not commonly used in crimes at the expense of millions of honest sportsmen.
 
Still says "no cosponsors." Boehner wouldn't play politics with this, would he?

I don't doubt Boehner would play politics with this; so I look at the facts:

14 Committee members co-sponsored this same legislation in last Congressional session (including the Committee Chairman). 4 more Committee members are on record supporting the concept of an AWB (they said they supported it in a news article or pushed a state AWB bill as a local rep). That means 2 votes (out of 4 Dems and 14 Reps) to come out of Committee.

As to co-sponsors, when McCarthy introduced this same legislation as H.R. 1312 in the 109th Congress, she introduced it on March 15, 2005 and did not have a single co-sponsor join her until April 14, 2005. She eventually ended up with 94 co-sponsors. Her previous effort in 2003 netted 111 co-sponsors.

H.R. 4296 - Chuck Schumer's AWB that passed the House in 1994 had only 61 co-sponsors at the time of its floor vote. It passed the House 216-214.

Boehner might well be playing politics; but there are ample facts to suggest we should be concerned regardless of whether he is playing politics or not. I'd much rather write a letter I didn't need to write than take a "wait & see" attitude that allows this thing to gain any traction because it is a bad, bad, bad bill.
 
My letter to the judiciary committee:
Banning assault weapons is to public safety what putting your seatback in the upright position is to surviving an airliner crash--a useless gesture to give the impression that you are doing something about some perceived problem. The weapons affected are expensive sporting arms that play a statistically insignificant role in crime. The people committing crimes are already prone to breaking the law and not likely to balk at breaking yet another law; hence this law will simply punish one group of law-abiding citizens for the sole purpose of giving another group the illusion that something is being done. This is not acceptable. Please do not allow H.R.1022 to get out of committee.

Thank you.
 
FYI, the NRA is finally starting to mobilize:

THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."

McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")

. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."

. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!

You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.
 
In cases like this, I view the NRA as a Freight Train..

Slow to get moving, but has a lot of energy behind it as it does..

Us "Keyboard Commandos" who email, call and write letters are essentially a small, quick reaction force. Look how fast we swarmed Zumbo. However, for a long, drawn out fight, our letter writing peters out.

While in my personal ideology, the NRA is not perfect, they are a big force to be reckoned with.

I'll take the group that has a 70% ideological match that gets results 70% of the time. While GOA is more in line with my personal views, some middle of the road pols dismiss them as exrememist.

The NRA does have the clout to get things done with the fence sitters. Also, it does probably scare some closet gun banners into inaction.
 
I'm moving later this year to a state (Hawaii) which requires gun registrations, from a state (Virginia) which does not.

Part of my collection includes a Bushmaster AR-15 A3 M4 rifle. I know these are targetted by the AWB2 bill, and I'm unclear about the grandfathering.

I have over 1,000 rounds of ammo, which would require registration, fees, and unannounced ATF home-inspections if the federal gov't tries again to get the Gun Violence Protection Act of 1994 (S.1878) (H.R.3932) to go through (this is ultimately what they want, the AWB and AWB2 are watered down versions of it). I'm also planning to get a Benelli semi-auto shotgun, which would be banned under the AWB2 bill.

I'm very concerned about registering my guns after I move to Hawaii, as I wouldn't want them to be taken away either New Orleans Nagin-style, or because of AWB2. I'm required to take them to the police and have them registered within 72 hours after they arrive in the state (they arrive as luggage at the airport and go straight home, uninspected).

I'm dreading this decision to register to them. I'm just unclear how this grandfathering thing is going to work, plus I don't have any receipts showing when I purchased them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top