cosine
Member
lamazza said:
Give it time. Every time I've written my rep it's always taken at least 3 or 4 weeks from the time I estimate he received my letter to the time I've received a letter from him in return.
H.R. 1022 - AWB II - What is in it? - Updated 2/23 on Page 6
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Give it time. Every time I've written my rep it's always taken at least 3 or 4 weeks from the time I estimate he received my letter to the time I've received a letter from him in return.
This is a petition against HR 1022. Take a minute to sign it. It already has over 16,000 signatures.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348
Nice article against HR1022
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...exander&dt=03/02/2007&page=full&comments=true
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...exander&dt=03/02/2007&page=full&comments=true
Good article!
Tx for posting the link. Here's the text
A Valentine's day massacre (of the Constitution)
By Mark M. Alexander
Friday, March 2, 2007
In some ways I'm surprised it took them this long. On Valentine's Day, 14 February, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) began a campaign to grab just about everything but Cupid's arrows with the introduction of her bill, HR 1022, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes." This is the same Carolyn McCarthy who introduced HR 297 on the first day of the new Congress, attempting the most massive expansion of the Brady Law since its 1993 passage. McCarthy's murky definition of "assault weapons" notwithstanding, the legislation's intent is to re-enact the 1994 Clinton gun grab, while adding a few million more firearms to the haul.
All this leads me to wonder whether the anti-gun crowd simply skips over that pesky constitutional amendment stuck right there between the First and the Third.
The hand of someone seeking an autograph is visible as Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) (L) faces cameras at a rally in Austin, Texas February 23, 2007. REUTERS/Peter A. Silva
Under the Clinton Gun Ban, which expired in 2004 under the Republican-controlled Congress, 19 so-called "assault weapons" -- in reality semi-automatic hunting and sporting rifles -- were banned for having characteristics that liberals found scary: certain stocks, grips, magazines and so forth. Under that 1994 law, manufacturers could still sell these weapons if they made them look less scary to liberals; HR 1022, however, would ban them entirely.
In addition to eliminating completely the weapons covered under the Clinton law, McCarthy's bill adds more than a few firearms to the list, including the following:
All semi-automatic shotguns; all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles; the most popular competition sporting rifles -- including the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and even today's version of the American infantryman's rifle of World War II, the M1 Garand; any shotgun or semi-automatic rifle having "any characteristic that can function as a grip"; any automatic fixed-magazine pistol exceeding a ten-round capacity; and any parts needed to repair or refurbish guns in circulation that are covered under the ban.
In addition, the legislation would give the Attorney General the prerogative to add any other shotgun or rifle to the list that the government ever deems not to be a "sporting" weapon. Not content with simply banning these weapons, HR 1022 also takes steps toward national firearm registration by mandating new rules for weapons and parts sales. Finally, as if all this weren't enough, McCarthy's bill would be a permanent ban, unlike the Clinton Ban, which expired after a ten-year trial period.
Legislation of this sort is becoming an obsession with Democrats. When the Clinton Ban was set to expire on 13 September 2004, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to extend and expand it. At the time, President Bush took the calculated move to commit to signing the bill if it made it through Congress -- since he knew it wouldn't. Now, with Democrats in control of both Houses, anxiously aided by anti-gun Republicans aplenty, what will the President do if HR 1022 makes it to his desk? The Patriot said at the time that the Bush administration's 2004 strategy was arrogance and folly -- and now that folly may be coming home to roost.
Perhaps this administration should focus more on the long-term effects of its action on the Constitution and less on the short-term gains to be had from "playing to the crowd." It is the Constitution, after all -- and not men -- that defines the rule of law.
The Constitution's Second Amendment prohibition against government interference in the "right to keep and bear arms" is the singular right that ensures all others. As noted by Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Indeed, Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46, "The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any." This is no less true today than it was in 1787.
When Feinstein-Schumer was coming around the bend in 2004, much hay was made of the Bureau of Justice Statistics data that firearms-related crime had declined 54 percent in the last decade (that is, the period covered by the Clinton Gun Ban). The number of violent crimes reported in 2002 was 980,000 fewer than in 2000, but a National Institute of Justice report (headed by Christopher Koper at the University of Pennsylvania) concluded, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."
Feinstein's own California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady noted in an internal memo, "Information on [these guns] would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the [Feinstein-Schumer] legislation would be based," and even the Washington Post admitted that the banned guns "play[ed] a part in only a small percentage of crime."
Like HR 1022 today, Feinstein-Schumer claimed to be aimed at the protection of law-abiding citizens from the "gun problem." Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with such restrictions -- and at their own peril. Criminals don't care whether the weapon they're using comports with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books, but they do care whether their intended victim has a firearm. Indeed, extensive interviews with violent felons make it clear that they'd much rather prey on those who are least likely to possess a gun for self-defense.
In Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Again, no less true today than it has been throughout history.
Clearly, our Founding Fathers had it right. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them," warned George Mason. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty," implored Patrick Henry. "Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
Mark Alexander is executive editor and publisher of The Patriot Post, the Web's "Conservative E-Journal of Record."
Be the first to read Mark Alexander's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Tx for posting the link. Here's the text
A Valentine's day massacre (of the Constitution)
By Mark M. Alexander
Friday, March 2, 2007
In some ways I'm surprised it took them this long. On Valentine's Day, 14 February, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) began a campaign to grab just about everything but Cupid's arrows with the introduction of her bill, HR 1022, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes." This is the same Carolyn McCarthy who introduced HR 297 on the first day of the new Congress, attempting the most massive expansion of the Brady Law since its 1993 passage. McCarthy's murky definition of "assault weapons" notwithstanding, the legislation's intent is to re-enact the 1994 Clinton gun grab, while adding a few million more firearms to the haul.
All this leads me to wonder whether the anti-gun crowd simply skips over that pesky constitutional amendment stuck right there between the First and the Third.
The hand of someone seeking an autograph is visible as Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) (L) faces cameras at a rally in Austin, Texas February 23, 2007. REUTERS/Peter A. Silva
Under the Clinton Gun Ban, which expired in 2004 under the Republican-controlled Congress, 19 so-called "assault weapons" -- in reality semi-automatic hunting and sporting rifles -- were banned for having characteristics that liberals found scary: certain stocks, grips, magazines and so forth. Under that 1994 law, manufacturers could still sell these weapons if they made them look less scary to liberals; HR 1022, however, would ban them entirely.
In addition to eliminating completely the weapons covered under the Clinton law, McCarthy's bill adds more than a few firearms to the list, including the following:
All semi-automatic shotguns; all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles; the most popular competition sporting rifles -- including the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and even today's version of the American infantryman's rifle of World War II, the M1 Garand; any shotgun or semi-automatic rifle having "any characteristic that can function as a grip"; any automatic fixed-magazine pistol exceeding a ten-round capacity; and any parts needed to repair or refurbish guns in circulation that are covered under the ban.
In addition, the legislation would give the Attorney General the prerogative to add any other shotgun or rifle to the list that the government ever deems not to be a "sporting" weapon. Not content with simply banning these weapons, HR 1022 also takes steps toward national firearm registration by mandating new rules for weapons and parts sales. Finally, as if all this weren't enough, McCarthy's bill would be a permanent ban, unlike the Clinton Ban, which expired after a ten-year trial period.
Legislation of this sort is becoming an obsession with Democrats. When the Clinton Ban was set to expire on 13 September 2004, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to extend and expand it. At the time, President Bush took the calculated move to commit to signing the bill if it made it through Congress -- since he knew it wouldn't. Now, with Democrats in control of both Houses, anxiously aided by anti-gun Republicans aplenty, what will the President do if HR 1022 makes it to his desk? The Patriot said at the time that the Bush administration's 2004 strategy was arrogance and folly -- and now that folly may be coming home to roost.
Perhaps this administration should focus more on the long-term effects of its action on the Constitution and less on the short-term gains to be had from "playing to the crowd." It is the Constitution, after all -- and not men -- that defines the rule of law.
The Constitution's Second Amendment prohibition against government interference in the "right to keep and bear arms" is the singular right that ensures all others. As noted by Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Indeed, Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46, "The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any." This is no less true today than it was in 1787.
When Feinstein-Schumer was coming around the bend in 2004, much hay was made of the Bureau of Justice Statistics data that firearms-related crime had declined 54 percent in the last decade (that is, the period covered by the Clinton Gun Ban). The number of violent crimes reported in 2002 was 980,000 fewer than in 2000, but a National Institute of Justice report (headed by Christopher Koper at the University of Pennsylvania) concluded, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."
Feinstein's own California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady noted in an internal memo, "Information on [these guns] would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the [Feinstein-Schumer] legislation would be based," and even the Washington Post admitted that the banned guns "play[ed] a part in only a small percentage of crime."
Like HR 1022 today, Feinstein-Schumer claimed to be aimed at the protection of law-abiding citizens from the "gun problem." Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with such restrictions -- and at their own peril. Criminals don't care whether the weapon they're using comports with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books, but they do care whether their intended victim has a firearm. Indeed, extensive interviews with violent felons make it clear that they'd much rather prey on those who are least likely to possess a gun for self-defense.
In Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Again, no less true today than it has been throughout history.
Clearly, our Founding Fathers had it right. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them," warned George Mason. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty," implored Patrick Henry. "Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
Mark Alexander is executive editor and publisher of The Patriot Post, the Web's "Conservative E-Journal of Record."
Be the first to read Mark Alexander's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Anteater1717
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 586
so basicaly ca is unifected exept now we cant have mini 14s are only metal semiauto with detachable mags and in a rifle caliber
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Cali-legal rifles that would be banned by this law include:
FAB-10, Springfield M1A, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Robinson Arms Cali rifle, Mini-14, and probably the Keltec SU16 as well. There are likely more than this; but off the top of my head those all would appear to be covered by the bill.
FAB-10, Springfield M1A, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Robinson Arms Cali rifle, Mini-14, and probably the Keltec SU16 as well. There are likely more than this; but off the top of my head those all would appear to be covered by the bill.
bogie
Member
Obviously California people don't have to worry about this.
Nor do folks in Massachusetts, Chicago, or New York.
Nor do folks in Massachusetts, Chicago, or New York.
kcmarine
Member
What we REALLY need to do is...
One of us needs to call our congressman and suggest an amendment to the bill banning "death cars" (Can you see where I'm going with this?). The amendment would make a car a "death car" if it had the following:
Red paint
Any aerodynamic stabilization fixtures
Chrome wheels
Sport tires
The ability to go above 55 MPH
A manual transmission
A stereo that could go above 75 dB
Any feature that the AG deems unsafe
Leather sport seating
A "loud" exhaust pipe
Any more that 4 cylinders in it's engine
Then, we could start giving statistics of how dangerous these cars are. And at the end of the introduction of the amendment, the C- man needs to say, "Please... do it for the children. *Sniffle*."
I'm dead serious. Call the reps now. If you make the bill frivolous enough, they won't touch it.
One of us needs to call our congressman and suggest an amendment to the bill banning "death cars" (Can you see where I'm going with this?). The amendment would make a car a "death car" if it had the following:
Red paint
Any aerodynamic stabilization fixtures
Chrome wheels
Sport tires
The ability to go above 55 MPH
A manual transmission
A stereo that could go above 75 dB
Any feature that the AG deems unsafe
Leather sport seating
A "loud" exhaust pipe
Any more that 4 cylinders in it's engine
Then, we could start giving statistics of how dangerous these cars are. And at the end of the introduction of the amendment, the C- man needs to say, "Please... do it for the children. *Sniffle*."
I'm dead serious. Call the reps now. If you make the bill frivolous enough, they won't touch it.
This bill is much more restrictive than any "assault weapon" ban on the books, even California's, with the possible exception of Cook County, Illinois's new ban. It would greatly afffect Mass, NJ, NY, Connecticut, etc. which have older "first generation" bans somewhat like the expired Federal ban.
Last edited:
SpeedAKL
Member
Just signed the petition. I'm not TOO afraid that this bill will pass, but I'm nevertheless going to purchase sooner than later.
coyote_jr
member
Here's what I don't get with McCarthy's reasoning for banning the .50BMG: She says in essence, "that because we have seen what terrorists can do with boxcutters, imagine what they could do with these, therefore we need to ban them". Now I could see if maybe 2 or 3 planes a week were going down in flames as the result of a terrorist with a .50 BMG rifle, but where the heck does she make the association with box cutters? Logically she should be calling for a ban on box cutters and yes I know she isn't using logic but it begs the ultimate question....
Why? Why is she on such a mission? Is it for purely personal reasons in regards to what happened to her family? I can see that as a natural reaction, but even then, they were killed with a handgun...
So why???
Why? Why is she on such a mission? Is it for purely personal reasons in regards to what happened to her family? I can see that as a natural reaction, but even then, they were killed with a handgun...
So why???
SWMAN
Member
Like all anitgunners, she has some great logic. That can go for motor vehicles too. Let's ban them now, so that in the future terrorists' can't use them as bombs!!!!!!!
Do a Google search on "Race Car Ban" A pro RKBA Democrat already wrote up such a proposal as an analog to the AWB.
Sadly, there were gun grabbers who refused to see the comparison, even when it was clearly spelled out. They just denounced the "RCB" as 'absurd', targetting vehicle features that had no effect on performance.
briansp82593
Member
dude can we call in some hitmen 
this never stops its our guns, our investments, our money.... and well? we should be able to buy what ever the hell we want espically if that law governing the right to was wrote when this country gained its independence.... people can shoot down a plane with a big @$$ slingshot... ban those too huh? think about common sense... people can be killed with anything... its my gun and my money and ill do what i want with it... banning guns isnt going to do anything but bring back gangsters like prohibition and you know what they will have? huh you guessed it G U N S and how many of those are going to be covered in hr1022... all of them.... its all these communist gun grabbing liberals, if you ban guns you might as well ban people because i feel that if that passes alot of people arent going to be the happiest and they are going to do something about it.... i got to get off here its making me mad 
this never stops its our guns, our investments, our money.... and well? we should be able to buy what ever the hell we want espically if that law governing the right to was wrote when this country gained its independence.... people can shoot down a plane with a big @$$ slingshot... ban those too huh? think about common sense... people can be killed with anything... its my gun and my money and ill do what i want with it... banning guns isnt going to do anything but bring back gangsters like prohibition and you know what they will have? huh you guessed it G U N S and how many of those are going to be covered in hr1022... all of them.... its all these communist gun grabbing liberals, if you ban guns you might as well ban people because i feel that if that passes alot of people arent going to be the happiest and they are going to do something about it.... i got to get off here its making me mad sorensen440
member
yes this is scary for us in California
it does add things to our already over restrictive awb and also will make it easyer for the next california gun laws to happen
also has anyone noticed the price of hi capacity mags lately?
sheesh
it does add things to our already over restrictive awb and also will make it easyer for the next california gun laws to happen
also has anyone noticed the price of hi capacity mags lately?
sheesh
IllHunter
Member
Let me show you what can happen...
if you laugh this off or underestimate the resolve of the antis. I fight on two fronts, the federal AWB and Illinois SB16 (see quote). This in one of only two states of 50 without anyconcealed carry, the home of two rabidly anti gun senators and a very powerful major city mayor , just re-elected to his sixth term. I didn't vote for any of these guys and am feeling just a tad disenfranchised. My congressman (Kirk) is a Democrat in disguise and was recently re-elected. Moving away seems more and more imminent!
:banghead:
if you laugh this off or underestimate the resolve of the antis. I fight on two fronts, the federal AWB and Illinois SB16 (see quote). This in one of only two states of 50 without anyconcealed carry, the home of two rabidly anti gun senators and a very powerful major city mayor , just re-elected to his sixth term. I didn't vote for any of these guys and am feeling just a tad disenfranchised. My congressman (Kirk) is a Democrat in disguise and was recently re-elected. Moving away seems more and more imminent!
:banghead:Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Check the update thread as well. HR 1022 gained 12 co-sponsors yesterday.
IllHunter
Member
Preaching to the choir...
I saw several comments chastising NRA as "asleep at the wheel". I received this e-mail on Feb 28. Please note the instructions.
In the immortal words of a certain swamp dwelling 'gator... "they is us!!"
I saw several comments chastising NRA as "asleep at the wheel". I received this e-mail on Feb 28. Please note the instructions.
In the immortal words of a certain swamp dwelling 'gator... "they is us!!"
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I think you saw the "asleep at the wheel" comments because the bill was introduced on February 13 and the NRA didn't comment until February 24th. Since this thread goes back to mid-February, you were probably reading older comments.
vis-à-vis
Member
:banghead:
SWMAN
Member
I was already on Jim Moran (D-VA8) as soon as I found out about HR1022. He's a rabid antigunner who especially wants to ban .50BMG rifles along with everything else. He's sooooo not acceptable that the Washington Post refused to endorse him in the last election. The guy has issues.
__________________
"Freedom is never free"
Does anyone know how many cosponsors this thing needs, before it can move out of committee? I hope that this thing dies quickly, but I am not sure if it will. This will be when we learn just how "Pro Gun" the supposed "Pro Gun" Democrats are.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The number of cosponsors doesn't directly determine whether it moves out of committee. What directly determines whether it moves out of committee is getting assigned hearings and a committee vote and the number of committee members who support it.
Now in practical aspects, the more co-sponsors a bill has, the more political pressure there is to get it out of committee. Without the hearings, markup and committee vote, the only way to get a bill out of committee is a discharge petition and you would need 216 votes to force a bill out of committee.
So far this bill hasn't been assigned to any subcommittee or had any hearings, markup, etc. That is probably good news for us since McCarthy only needs 20 committee members to vote on her side and 14 committee members sponsored this in 2005 and another 3 have publicly expressed support for various AWBs.
My guess is that if this gets hearings, markup, etc. it will pass the Judiciary committee. Right now we are betting on the Democrats respect for gun owners' power at the polls to keep this bill in limbo and unscheduled.
Clear as mud?
Now in practical aspects, the more co-sponsors a bill has, the more political pressure there is to get it out of committee. Without the hearings, markup and committee vote, the only way to get a bill out of committee is a discharge petition and you would need 216 votes to force a bill out of committee.
So far this bill hasn't been assigned to any subcommittee or had any hearings, markup, etc. That is probably good news for us since McCarthy only needs 20 committee members to vote on her side and 14 committee members sponsored this in 2005 and another 3 have publicly expressed support for various AWBs.
My guess is that if this gets hearings, markup, etc. it will pass the Judiciary committee. Right now we are betting on the Democrats respect for gun owners' power at the polls to keep this bill in limbo and unscheduled.
Clear as mud?
- Status
Similar threads
