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

[skinnyguy]

the "Grandfather clause"

Provided this bill passes, the grandfather clause for all practical purposes states, "if you have it, you can keep it". All well and good. However, this new legislation will be in place for 10 years.

Should there be questions as to how and when I obtained the over-10 round capacity mags I currently own, and plan on owning, I will have to provide evidence as to date of purchase, establishing my ownership before this bill took away my 2A rights. That means keeping recipts, or getting a notorized statement of ownership that is dated PRIOR to whatever date this bill is approved. This will be particularly important beginning after the first 2 or 3 years this bill is active.

Should I not have this documentation, or I am unable to provide it upon request, I do believe that the democratic dictatorship of the U.S. will have no problem whatsoever in stealing my firearms and any and all accesories related thereof, and tossing my skinny a** in prison for 10 years per each magazine/rifle/pistol/target/bullet in my possession. Regardless of whether I legally own it or not.

So, I'm going to do 2 things, I will put together all the documentation I have, and get the documentation I need. But first, I'm emailing my Utah congressmen.

May I suggest all of you please do the same?
Paul

 

[carnaby]

I think this bill goes so far as to require civil disobedience on our part, at a minimum. It does go too far. As Americans, we should not stand for it.

Fortunately, it will not be passed as law. On second thought, maybe that's unfortunate. It might be time that the gun-grabbers be shown the line that cannot be crossed.

 

[HiroProX]

I think this bill goes so far as to require civil disobedience on our part, at a minimum. It does go too far. As Americans, we should not stand for it.

Except for one thing. The people who are backing insane piles of worthless babble like this have pledged themselves to support killing you and your's should you not bow down and kiss their feet.

All governments are based on one principle... the murder of any and all opposition to their aims.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

Well at least my SKS would be saved, it has the factory fixed 10 round magazine, wooden stock, no tacti-cool stuff for me. I'm surprised they left out the bayonet lug and grenade launcher in the AW definitions. What I REALLY worry about is an import ammo ban, aka wolf. If they try that stunt, I'll be ordering 5 cases pronto.

It would also be a good time to load up on hi-cap mags for my XD 40.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

Point here: this particular bill is just a feeler, right?

Does anyone think that this is _the_ big attack, or just the first little poke?

I'm all for smacking it down like a whack-a-mole in either case. We just have to make sure that we don't kill this sucker in committee and then pat ourselves on the back for the next three years.

Further, as I mentioned before, there is the concern about becoming "white noise". If the exact same 200 people bug a congressman every time any gun bill comes up, will he (or his multi-layered bureaucratic underlings) just start tossing them all in the circular file?

-MV

 

[JWarren]

Addressing no one in particular:

Talk about grandfather clauses and whether your particular firearm would be included is already a defeated attitude. We aren't so much as talking about drawing the line in the sand and stopping this thing as much as we are envisioning living under, and living WITH, another unconsitutional infringement on the rights recognized by the original framers of our Consititution.

It is no wonder that those in power who desire MORE control over the American citizenship desire more control over firearms ownership.

These people believe the Consitution is an ever-evolving document, which it may be -- WITH a Consititional Amendment. They, with the use of activists judges and willing participants in various media outlets have conditioned citizens to believe the Consitution is somehow subordinate to their lesser and in many cases local laws.

But we just shrug it off and go back to watching Monday Night Football.

John

 

[Wes Janson]

Ban = Ban

Grandfathering = Guaranteed slow ban over next 25-50 years


Same end result, just different time scale (also assuming they don't wait twenty years then just go straight to confiscation). Maybe you'll have yours, but what about your kids? And your grandchildren?

In my opinion, in the last analysis they all take us to the same place, it's just a question of how long it takes to get there.

 

[Prince Yamato]

While this may not be THE ban, I think this is the basic framework of what THE BAN will look like. Since this is basically a no compromise ban, unlike the last one, I think that gun groups are going to fight it tooth and nail. It's confusing as hell. It's unconstitutional. Take it to the supreme court and get our machineguns back while you're at it.

 

[Nomoney]

6. Any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for law enforcement or military use (M1 Garand) is presumed to be an assault weapon and the Attorney General may restrict it if he decides it does not have a sporting use (actual use of the rifle in a sport doesn't mean it has sporting use according to this section). (Sec. 3(a)(L))

so could this, in theory, be used to make sks' a no-no?

 

[nobody_special]

so could this, in theory, be used to make sks' a no-no?

Absolutely.

I think this particular section bears close scrutiny. The proposed law defines the following as an assault weapon:

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.

Note the second sentence... semiautomatic rifles and shotguns used by the military or law enforcement are presumed to be assault weapons. That probably covers pretty much every autoloading rifle and shotgun made.

 

[havoc7usmc]

HR 1022.

I'm a GOA member and I would like to know why they haven't set a message out about this bill this is some scary stuff. I'm a little concerned, even though I live in Vermont, our Congress men and Senetor are not the most gun friendly people. Our gun laws, if you ask me, have kept the crime down in VT because Law Abiding Citizens can carry with out a permit.
21 yrs of age, not a felon, be a state resident....you have the right to carry concealed and protect your family and property.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Provided this bill passes, the grandfather clause for all practical purposes states, "if you have it, you can keep it". All well and good. However, this new legislation will be in place for 10 years.

And who's to say the text of this bill wouldn't morph into a permanent ban
before the final vote --and still passes? Plenty of RINOs who would play the
old demo "gee, that must have been slipped in and my staffers didn't give me
a heads up on the change" game.

I'm a GOA member and I would like to know why they haven't set a message out about this bill this is some scary stuff.

Extended vacations thru the holiday yesterday? Let's see how many of the
big groups get the word out this week. So far we've had everyone in rest
stops or asleep at the wheel on this --no one trucking down the highway.

 

[ID_shooting]

Anyone watching the Cruffler forums? Do they know about this yet? I mean shoot, going after the M1 Carbine by name, wait, didn't the CMP just anounce they are going to offer up MORE M1 carbines. Doesn't that make the US Govt the LARGEST supplier of M1 Carbines

This certianly give ammunition to the debate about how this bill about supposedly reducing crime when in reality is about removing RKBA from the citizenry. How many times in the last 20 years has an M1 Carbine been used in a crime? :banghead:

This the perfect example to bring formerly immune collectors, duck hunters, trap shooters, and competitors to the line with us and stand united.

 

[buzz_knox]

How many times in the last 20 years has an M1 Carbine been used in a crime?

It was apparently the weapon of choice in a notorious car-jacking/double rape/double murder here in Knoxville. At least, news reports indicated that one of the victims was killed with the carbine.

 

[chas_martel]

Talking civil disobedience sure ain't taking the high road.

Also, if our reps see fit to enact legislation who are you and I
to disobey it?

 

[buzz_knox]

Talking civil disobedience sure ain't taking the high road.

Also, if our reps see fit to enact legislation who are you and I
to disobey it?

Civil disobedience is absolutely high road as that is how this nation was formed, and how many of the civil rights advancements was achieved.

As for obeying legislation simply because it was enacted, I hope you were joking. Disobeying legislation and being punished for it is how test cases are advanced, and how laws are often overturned.

Discussions of open, armed rebellion would probably be going too far. But simply saying "no" to inappropriate laws? Americans have been doing that (and occasionally dying for it) since 1775. That's sort of how we got to be who we are.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Does something like this have any chance of passing?

That is difficult to say right now. In the past, a large percentage of bills authored by McCarthy (something like 86 out of 89) went straight into the Committee garbage bin and were never heard from again. The big difference is that this was when Republicans controlled the House Judiciary committee (and mostly pro-gun Republicans at that). The House Judiciary committee is now controlled by Democrats and they are almost uniformly anti-gun. The Committee Chairman is the sole remaining House member to have voted for the 1968 Gun Control Act and he has sponsored this bill in the past.

This bill will be a big test on whether Democrats mean what they say about tolerating pro-gun voters. If it stays in committee, it shows that maybe they fear loss of votes more than they want gun control. If it leaves committee now, it shows that they aren't even going to pretend to lie low.

Wouldn't Bush veto it?

Bush said he would sign a renewal of the existing legislation. This is way different than that legislation. Different enough that he could easily justify a veto. Given the likelihood that the Republicans will run a milquetoast McCain/Giuliani/Romney style candidate in 2008 - they certainly would be foolish to poke gun owners in the eye with a sharp stick and NOT veto this. On the other hand, Bush has been very reluctant to use the veto pen.

So, short answer is that this bill is probably not going anywhere but there is a LOT of uncertainty out there that could easily change that.

An important point to take away from this bill:

This isn't just bad anti-gun legislation. It is poorly drafted, badly written anti-gun legislation. Even the author has no idea how this legislation would work in actual practice. Let me give just one example:

Under Sec. 3(a)(K) - a California-legal FAB-10 rifle would clearly be derived from the receiver of a named rifle and would be an assault weapon in its own right, even though it has no detachable magazine and a fixed magazine of only 10 rounds. Would it be banned? Tough to say since in one place in the bill it implies it is OK and in another it implies it isn't.

How about parts kits - are pistol grips, free float rails and threaded barrels now "assault weapons" that must be transferred on a 4473? Do you need an FFL to manufacture them? Arguably, this bill does authorize it but it doesn't spell out any of the details on how such a gargantuan goatrope would be implemented.

To me that is the scariest part of this bill, there are giant gray areas that say "X is prohibited" but give no clue as to how that will be implemented in a practical sense. This means that either ATF will be given vast authority to interpret (and re-interpret at some later date) how this bill will work in actual practice or local prosecutors will have to fill in the blanks by selectively prosecuting people whenever they think a violation has occured. Both of those solutions give me cold chills. It is apparent just from reading the bill that even Ms. McCarthy doesn't know how it would be implemented ultimately.

I would hope that such poorly drafted legislation would be enough that even the antis on the House Judiciary committee would not want to open that can of worms; but we are better off safe than sorry. If you have a representative on the committee, write them and let them know you oppose this legislation.

Also there is no sunset clause on this bill - if it did pass, it would be the law of the land until it was repealed by Congress or overturned in Court. Edited to add: I may be wrong about there being no sunset. See Post #89 for more details.

On the discussion of civil disobedience, I think buzz knox summed it up well. There is a long, proud history of non-violent civil disobedience to unjust laws in this country and this legislation certainly strikes me as unjust.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Also there is no sunset clause on this bill - if it did pass, it would be the law of the land until it was repealed by Congress or overturned in Court

I think that needs to be repeated. Do we wanna hold our collective breath
on a repeal?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Rep. McCarthy introduced this same bill in the 109th Congress (Republicans controlled the committees). During that attempt, she received 94 co-sponsors for her bill (H.R. 1312 in the 109th Congress). This bill was basically identical to her latest proposal (H.R. 1022).

Now that the Democrats control the House Judiciary Committee (which decides whether this legislation gets roundfiled or goes to the floor), guess how many of those co-sponsors are now on the House Judiciary Committee?

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (MI-14) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Howard Berman (CA-28) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-16) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Maxine Waters (CA-35) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Robert Wexler (FL-19) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. William Delahunt (MA-10) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Martin Meehan (MA-5) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (IL-4) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Brad Sherman (CA-27) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY-9) - co-sponsored previous AWB.
Rep. Adam Schiff (CA-29) - co-sponsored previous AWB.

McCarthy needs 20 votes to move this bill out of committee. She already has 14 who have co-sponsored this identical legislation in the past - including the House Committee Chairman who is incredibly powerful when it comes to moving legislation out of Committee. All she needs is 6 votes (there are another 9 Democrats on the committee without even getting into RINOs) to get this legislation on to the House floor for a vote.

If your Representative is listed below, you MUST contact them and let them know you oppose this legislation and expect them to make sure it never leaves Committee.

Democrat
Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Meehan
(D) Massachusetts, 5th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th


Republican
Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan
(R) Ohio, 4th

 

[JWarren]

chas_martel wrote:

Talking civil disobedience sure ain't taking the high road.

Also, if our reps see fit to enact legislation who are you and I
to disobey it?

PLEASE tell me that this was sarcasm!


This country started with an act of civil disobedience-- American Revolution, anyone?

Some of the most important stepping stones in our country's history REQUIRED civil disobedience. Civil Rights Movement, Women's right to vote, etc....


Who are we to disobey it? WE are American citizens who are afforded RIGHTS under the Consistution of the United States of America. The real question should be who are THEY to believe THEY are above this sacred document???


I am sure that not turning in a Jewish friend hiding in Germany circa 1942 would be an act of civil disobedience as well. Yet, I wonder if anyone would say he did the right thing by sending his friend off to be gassed? After all, wouldn't that make you a good, loyal citizen?


John

 

[gyp_c2]

aahh...

...I think it prudent to remind ourselves that it is not treasonous to support and defend the Constitution and stand up for the Bill of Rights...
'shall not be infringed'...
...I think from here on out, we need to treat them all as the worst and keep it up until the grandchildren take over...

 

[pbhome71]

Here's my copy. Notice that I tell them to let it up to the State.

Dear Honarable <name>,

This is regarding my OPPOSITION to H.R. 1022, to re-authorize the federal "Assault Weapons Ban".

Matter such as this is best left to individual State Legistration.

I would greatly appreciate any effort you could make to encourage your peers on the Judiciary Committee to oppose this this legislation.

Sincerely,

-<Name>

BTW, I wrote to them all on a post card. It is 24 cents each. It is money well spent.

-Pat

 

[Libertylover]

I wish all the states that actually take the Constitutional protections on the RKBA - both in the federal Constitution and in their State Constitutions - seriously would grow a pair and threaten secession should the feds go back on their constitutional promises to ensure a republican form of government and to guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Perhaps a few chunks missing on the map of the US would finally get the Feds to quit trying this all together. MT, WY, and ID are in an ideal position to threaten secession and form a confederation or perhaps a new federal government, except for the whole no coasts thing. There are those in VT who are already talking about it, and there is a nascent secession movement in NH as well.

The political discourse in this country needs to be shifted from socialist do-gooder crap like education funding and healthcare back to rights of citizens. I don't give a rats ass about my Pell grant (yep, I'm a student, yep, I took fed money for it, so shoot me) if my rights are being trampled.

But alas, so long as the beer is in the fridge, the ball game is on TV, none of the sheep could care less about the feds running roughshod over their rights.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Talking civil disobedience sure ain't taking the high road.

Civil disobedience, followed by military disobedience, are essential options. However, the cost of civil disobedience is high and the cost of military disobedience is extreme. Therefore, try your best and foremost to head off this calamity at the legislative level, when the cost is only time and money. The cost of the other options may include loss of home and limbs, so they should not be tried without a dire need.

I wouldn't want a squad mate who claims to be willing to be a guerilla and risk his life but didn't bother pestering the elected things when that was still possible.

 

[Gene_WI]

Wise words Oleg. Write, call, vote, we can stop thsi via legal peaceful methods.