energy bill hr6 and 922(o)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by woerm, Nov 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. woerm

    woerm Member

    Feb 27, 2004
    Glitter Gulch, LSR
    I have found the congressional records finally on the energy bill.

    it's subtitle d, sect 653 of now public law

    is the conference report
    text snipped from thomas

    The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by inserting after section 161 (42 U.S.C. 2201) the following:


    `a. Definitions- In this section, the terms `handgun', `rifle', `shotgun', `firearm', `ammunition', `machinegun', `short-barreled shotgun', and `short-barreled rifle' have the meanings given the terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.

    `b. Authorization- Notwithstanding subsections (a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(2), (b)(4), and (o) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, section 925(d)(3) of title 18, United States Code, section 5844 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and any law (including regulations) of a State or a political subdivision of a State that prohibits the transfer, receipt, possession, transportation, importation, or use of a handgun, a rifle, a shotgun, a short-barreled shotgun, a short-barreled rifle, a machinegun, a semiautomatic assault weapon, ammunition for any such gun or weapon, or a large capacity ammunition feeding device, in carrying out the duties of the Commission, the Commission may authorize the security personnel of any licensee or certificate holder of the Commission (including an employee of a contractor of such a licensee or certificate holder) to transfer, receive, possess, transport, import, and use 1 or more such guns, weapons, ammunition, or devices, if the Commission determines that--

    `(1) the authorization is necessary to the discharge of the official duties of the security personnel; and

    `(2) the security personnel--

    `(A) are not otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State laws relating to possession of firearms by a certain category of persons;

    `(B) have successfully completed any requirement under this section for training in the use of firearms and tactical maneuvers;

    `(C) are engaged in the protection of--

    `(i) a facility owned or operated by a licensee or certificate holder of the Commission that is designated by the Commission; or

    `(ii) radioactive material or other property owned or possessed by a licensee or certificate holder of the Commission, or that is being transported to or from a facility owned or operated by such a licensee or certificate holder, and that has been determined by the Commission to be of significance to the common defense and security or public health and safety; and

    `(D) are discharging the official duties of the security personnel in transferring, receiving, possessing, transporting, or importing the weapons, ammunition, or devices.

    `c. Background Checks- A person that receives, possesses, transports, imports, or uses a weapon, ammunition, or a device under subsection (b) shall be subject to a background check by the Attorney General, based on fingerprints and including a background check under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159; 18 U.S.C. 922 note) to determine whether the person is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law.

    `d. Effective Date- This section takes effect on the date on which guidelines are issued by the Commission, with the approval of the Attorney General, to carry out this section.'

    this is the pos itself:

    but I still don't see any discussion as to why or who plunked the mercinary rearrment exempton in on 922(o)

    I called my misreptile and have not made any progress.

    point that drives me up the wall is this passed in Aug 05 and did not show up in til after the elections of 06.:scrutiny:

    Does anyone have a congress critter or senator that might elucidate why this was slipped in and not debated anywhere.

    second question is why couldn't they have just repealed 922(o) instead.

    fyi my misreptile and both senators just lost my vote, forever over this bs.

    both of their staffs were useless is digging up any info on this POS:cuss:

  2. kludge

    kludge Member

    Jun 15, 2006
    I'm usually pretty good at figuring this stuff out but this time... English please?
  3. jlbraun

    jlbraun Member

    Dec 29, 2005
    Is this the bill that allows guards at nuke plants to carry 922(o) exempt machineguns?

    They should just strike 922(o).
  4. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Dec 24, 2002
    Wichita, KS
    A lot of folk here got their panties in a bind over this when it passed.

    Oh noes ... mercs with BRAND NEW machine guns that don't cost $15,000!

    But as far as I'm concerned, every hole that can be poked in 922(o) should be ... I don't care if this means that Blackwater or Brinks guys can now possess brand new MP5s. Good for them. The more Americans armed with goodies like this the better (and I trust a private contractor much more than a Gendarme or Bureaucrat).
  5. Thin Black Line

    Thin Black Line Member

    Sep 4, 2005
    Amerikan Twilight Zone
    For the time being though they do tend to have looser ROE than those more firmly
    attached to fedgov's teat.
  6. 2TransAms

    2TransAms Member

    Feb 26, 2006
    Illinois,by St. Louis MO
    Right on. I'm not a mercenary and I can't afford a full-auto weapon anyhow. If someone else can,and can legally get them,good for them.
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