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

[ctdonath]

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS

Tricky.

Bait-and-switch.

They say in titles that it will sunset in 10 years. Nice soothing bait.

But - switch - there isn't anything implementing a 10-year timeout.

 

[ctdonath]

Discussions of open, armed rebellion would probably be going too far. But simply saying "no" to inappropriate laws?

Saying "no" to these inappropriate laws can elicit open violent control upon you.
Much, if not all, of what's in this bill are felonies.

Doesn't help that the bill operates by multiple levels of indirection.
Quick: tell me what the penalty is for having an unmarked >10-round magazine made at the wrong time?

 

[vis-à-vis]

How do we find out when this bill will be discussed and are we privy to that convorsation?

 

[Thin Black Line]

Just a thought, but how about making this thread a sticky in L&P as we
track this bill through the entire process?

 

[KD7ONE]

Well, it looks like I add a new name to my list on my newsletter, Marbury v Madison Congressional Monitor.

When a member of Congress raises their right hand and swear to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic, they are making a verbal contract with the American people.

After they make that verbal contract, they sign a card stating they have made such an oath of office. In doing so, they are turning their verbal contract into a written contract.

Whenever a member of Congress either/and/or sponsors, cosponsors, votes in favor of (both in committee and on the House or Senate floor) any legislation which is contrary to the Constitution, they are breaking the written contract, which they made with the American people.

The purposes of this newsletter are to:
• Make such actions of their Representatives and Senators in Congress aware to the public.
• Keep a running record of how many times a member of Congress violated their oath of office.
• Explain how those pieces of legislation are in violation of the Constitution.
• Store such information in a database so it can be supplied to anybody who runs for office against those who violated their oath of office.

 

[Wasz]

Ok so Im a little behind. Is this still in committee? Once it leaves there wheres it going? I know diddlycrap about how this stuff actually works.

 

[SamTuckerMTNMAN]

here ya go

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

HAHAHA!

At least something made me laught a little this morning...

ST

 

[johnmcl]

Contacted Two

Hi all,

I've e-mailed the two Virginians on the Judiciary Committee. I'll let you know when I get a reply,

 

[Darth Muffin]

I have an honest (and possibly dumb) question about this proposed AWB:

I noticed that it requires a banned gun to go through a dealer when changing hands, even if it's a private transation that doesn't cross state lines. My question is what gives the Feds the right to regulate intrastate [within a state] commerce? What are they thinking? I don't understand how this can be even remotely Constitutional.

Thanks.

Tom.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I noticed that it requires a banned gun to go through a dealer when changing hands, even if it's a private transation that doesn't cross state lines. My question is what gives the Feds the right to regulate intrastate [within a state] commerce? What are they thinking? I don't understand how this can be even remotely Constitutional.

It basically goes back to the Depression-era Wickard v. Filburn ruling. For recent rulings along the same line see U.S. v. Stewart (intrastate manufacture of machineguns) and Gonzales v. Raich. I don't particularly favor the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that those rulings support; but that is the law they use to justify intrastate regulation.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

 

[Gene_WI]

That is bad news. I have a very bad feeling that we are about to be violated.

 

[Gene_WI]

What is the worst case scenario time line we are looking at?

How long before we know if it is out of committee? If it gets out of committee I am willing to bet that passing the house will not be a problem. Then we will have a fight in the senate? What if it passes there. How many weeks do we have to complete our shopping.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I couldn't give you a worst case scenario - just too many unknowns to accurately predict. A lot depends on how heavily the Democratic leadership supports it. Things can move very fast if they get behind the bill and Republicans wouldn't be in a position to slow it down until it hit the Senate.

I've been looking at the individual members of the House Judiciary Committee. The good news is that most of the Republicans are pro-gun. The bad news is that 17 of the Democrats are on the record supporting an AWB and 14 of them have co-sponsored this exact legislation in the past.

The Democrats only need 20 votes to move it out of Committee. There are only four Democrats that I don't know how they will vote:

Boucher (VA-9 GOA B rated)
VIRGINIA
188 East Main Street
Abingdon, Virginia 24210
276-628-1145

106 North Washington
Pulaski, Virginia 24301
540-980-4310

1 Cloverleaf Square,
Suite C-1
Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219
276-523-5450

WASHINGTON D.C.
2187 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3861
202-225-0442(fax)

Cohen (TN-9)

1004 Longworth HOB
Washington DC 20515
ph: (202) 225-3265
fx: (202) 225-5663 fax
http://cohen.house.gov/

Johnson (GA-4)
http://hankjohnson.house.gov/

Ellison (MN-5)
http://ellison.house.gov/

We need all four of these Dems or the three + the "vacant" Dem vote, and every single Republican vote to stop this in Committee. A possible point of worry on the R-side is Rep. Dan Lungren (http://ellison.house.gov/) of CA-3. As California Attorney General he supported that state's AWB. If Lungren switches, we need all of the Dems listed above plus the vacant seat to win.

Short version: Looks like Boehner's office is right. Start planning to see this come to a floor vote in the House sometime this year unless the Dem leadership stifles it out of fear - which I really don't see Pelosi doing.

 

[nobody_special]

The next meeting of the House of Reps is on Feb 27th. In principle this could make it to the floor within the next week, but it could be substantially longer. Hard to tell.

It will be interesting to see what (if any) changes are made to the bill in committee.

Don't panic yet... it won't be law until passed by both the House and Senate, and signed by the President.

Anyone want to search recent bills introduced to the Senate?

 

[RNB65]

It would be nice if someone would modify the applicable code sections with the changes proposed in HR 1022 and post the before and after versions here so we can compare them side by side. I would do it myself, but I'm going to be on the road the next days with limited internet access. Anybody want to take a stab at it?

 

[JLelli]

I see nothing about this proposed legislation on the NRA's website. Do they not think it serious? Do they not expect it to move out of committee?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Anyone want to search recent bills introduced to the Senate?

Just did it this morning and no companion bill in the Senate yet.

It would be nice if someone would modify the applicable code sections with the changes proposed in HR 1022

McCarthy's bill modifies Title 18 USC 921, 922 and 924. The modfications to 924 make illegal possession of a semi-auto on par with illegal possession of an NFA weapon (10yr minimum sentence). The modifications of 921 and 922 simply revive the 1994 AWB. Then the rest of McCarthy's bill replaces most of the 1994 AWB with the text from her bill.

I don't know why they wrote it that way. The 1994 legislation has been dead for 2.5 years now and McCarthy's legislation completely guts it anyway. So why bother to revive the 1994 law and then amend it? The only reasons I can think of to do that are:

1) To try and hide some aspects of the bill in the text of expired law
2) To claim that this is a "renewal" in hopes that President Bush will sign it.

As to why NRA isn't acting, i can't say. They may be waiting for hearings, cosponsors or assignment to a subcommittee before they move it from the list of bills that are proposed every year to a bill they need to be concerned about.

 

[Ridgeway]

We need all four of these Dems or the three + the "vacant" Dem vote, and every single Republican vote to stop this in Committee. A possible point of worry on the R-side is Rep. Dan Lungren (http://ellison.house.gov/) of CA-3. As California Attorney General he supported that state's AWB. If Lungren switches, we need all of the Dems listed above plus the vacant seat to win.

Short version: Looks like Boehner's office is right. Start planning to see this come to a floor vote in the House sometime this year unless the Dem leadership stifles it out of fear - which I really don't see Pelosi doing.

As it appears very likely that it could, if desired by the dems, make it to the house floor,
The next, and potentially more important question is, can it pass in the house/senate?

Bush signing it would not surprise me in the least, do we have hope in the senate though?

 

[Big Mike]

"For Law Enforcement Use Only" Mags.

So assuming I can prove the post ban, ex-police issue hi-cap mags are mine, how would they be marked any differently than mags if HB 1022 passes? I think anyone having mags marked like this can have difficulties not only proving they legally purchased them after the 94 Ban sunsetted, but being in possession of them if HB1022 passes. Mike

 

[mrb302]

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

No. This in practice will be used to make all guns a no-no. It's simple. You start small and take away a few here and there, then add a couple more features on the next ban, then a couple more... eventually ALL firearms will be banned.

I already mailed this one to my Rep who is on the comittee:

Honorable [INSERT YOUR REP'S NAME],

I am a constituent in [INSERT YOUR COUNTY OR DISTRICT] and I wanted to make you aware of my opinion concerning HR1022 "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007".

It is my opinion that the proposed bill is neither viable, nor constitutional. The second amendment has been trampled and re-written enough all ready; We The People want no more editing to this truly great document, specifically our Bill of Rights.

The statistics show that such laws effect the legal gun owner, not the criminal.

Career criminals admit that they don't by their guns at gun shops, or other retail outlets. Therefore, any type of weapon, including the weapons that will fall under the ban, are readily available through illegal sources. Guns used illegally, by criminals to commit violent crime can seldom (if ever) be traced back to a legitimate purchase. The proposed ban would have no effect on crime, and would further inhibit decent citizens from defending their families.

Career criminals admit that they don't concern themselves with laws and regulations in general, why should they worry about having a banned firearm? They don't. If a person is in the act of committing a violent felony, involving gangs, drugs, and the like they generally posses an illegal firearm regardless of the prohibitions concerning magazine capacity, grip style, and other aesthetic design features. I do not believe that a gang member actually chooses the firearm that he or she possess based on grip design, much less do they reference current firearms legislation. Again, the proposed ban would have no effect on crime, but inhibit the honest man from being well protected.

Furthermore, I do not see anything in the wording of the bill, other than the title, that concerns protection for law enforcement officers.

I have entrusted you to take my voice to The Hill, and I am trusting that you will hear my concerns.

Your Constituent,

This is my original work, I did not copy and paste but I hear-by give permission for anyone to use any part or all of this letter if you will send it to your elected reps. I put it in a quote field so it would be easy to pick out of the rest of the text.

 

[RNB65]

I strongly recommend sending a well written letter by snail mail rather than an e-mail. I suspect that a sharp looking piece of paper will carry far more weight than just another e-mail which a staffer will probably just read and delete. An attached petition with multiple signatures supporting the letter will be even better.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The next, and potentially more important question is, can it pass in the house/senate?

According to the earlier link from AR15.com, Boehner's office reportedly thinks that H.R. 1022 will pass in the House. I'm not as skeptical as they are... I am hoping some of those "pro-2A Dems" will not want to go on record for an AWB.

Bush signing it would not surprise me in the least, do we have hope in the senate though?

We have a better chance in the Senate than the House I think. I also don't think Bush would sign this. It is a long way from a straight-out renewal and his actual actions (as opposed to words) in 2004 show him undercutting the much milder AWB every chance he got. Even if he would veto, I doubt he would come out beforehand and threaten a veto though. Besides bringing a lot of heat on him, he would miss the political advantage of getting a bunch of new Dems on record for gun control before he pulls the rug out from under them. The only thing that makes me nervous is that Bush hasn't vetoed much so far.

 

[chas_martel]

All this talk about stopping the problem by writing to or calling
people that don't care is a waste of time. We are locked
into an endless spiral of needing to be reactionary.

Until we go on the offensive we are wasting our time. We should
not be "asking" to not be infringed. We should be taking ground.
Anything less is losing.

It sickens me that gays/lesbians are taking ground and we are losing.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be a law against
being gay, but I also don't think it is right. Here we have
a fundamental right and yet we gun owners cower and beg
to be allowed to have 10 round mags. Just try and get 10 gun
owners to show up in protest anywhere. Ain't gonna happen.

Perhaps we do indeed deserve to be infringed..................

 

[js]

Where is the NRA on this? I haven't received any alerts on this issue from them. Are they sleeping at the wheel on this one...?