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

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, I took the bill over to some gracious legal scholars and we went over the provisions in detail. While the bill could easily qualify as a teaching point for poorly drafted legislation, we did reach the following conclusions:

1) There is a sunset clause
2) Possession of large capacity magazines is grandfathered as of enactment of HR1022
3) Possession of semi-autos is grandfathered as of enactment of HR1022
4) Section saying that any semi-auto that only takes five rounds cannot be an AW has been removed
5) Section allowing retired law enforcement officers to keep large cap mags has been removed
6) Appendix A of the original ban (listing firearms by name that are definitely not AWs) has been neutered. They revived Appendix A (oddly enough) but then struck out the language that exempted those firearms. So we now have a lengthy appendix to Title 18 that serves no purpose and in fact lists firearms as "protected" that are banned by name in Title 18 Sec. 921(a). Extreme goofiness.
7) Basically if you own a semi-auto rifle manufactured after 1898, it is an assault weapon or can easily be interpreted to be one. Pistol and shotgun owners have an easier time of it; but still a lot of restrictions.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Basically if you own a semi-auto rifle manufactured after 1898, it is an assault weapon or can easily be interpreted to be one.

Did anyone else feel that just now? You know --kind of like someone just
turned up the heat on our little frog pond?

 

[nighthawk2099]

Actually, it felt more like when the doctor tells you to turn your head and cough!

 

[Thin Black Line]

At least the Dr is trying to help and keep all your parts functioning properly.

 

[shield20]

OK - still doesn't seem to be enough anger on this:

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

`(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.'.

`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.


So, from just these sections, my M1S90 – banned, My M1 Carbine – banned, my M1A – banned, MY M1 Garand – banned, my XM-15 post-ban - banned, my CX4 - banned , my G22 - banned

Get madder people!!!



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

 

[illspirit]

5) Section allowing retired law enforcement officers to keep AWs has been removed

Would this, by extension, forbid current law enforcement from possessing a non-department-issued "assault weapon" as well? I seem to recall those exemptions being in the same place in the '94 version.

 

[chas_martel]

Guys, in my opinion we should not even engage in
this battle.

We should go on the offensive trying to get
MORE freedoms. Let's get our rep's, if possible, to
propose for the repeal of the NFA restrictions. Let's
get legislation started for national, license free, CCW.
Let's get the Fed to enacted legislation overriding
any state restricting the 2nd.

You can't win by only playing defense.

Let me ask this, when is the last time
you heard someone proposing to end womens suffrage?
We need to elevate our cause to that level.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Would this, by extension, forbid current law enforcement from possessing a non-department-issued "assault weapon" as well? I seem to recall those exemptions being in the same place in the '94 version.

If the officer is authorized by the department to purchase an assault weapon with his own money, he is exempted from the ban for on or off-duty use.

Also I made an error, retired law enforcement officers may keep a banned AW upon retirement if their agency allows it. However, they are prohibited from keeping any large capacity magazines after retirement.

We should go on the offensive trying to get
MORE freedoms.

John Conyers (co-sponsored McCarthy's bill, only House member still serving to have backed 1968 GCA) is the Chairman of the Judiciary committee. How far do you think such a bill will go in a Committee where his party has 24 votes and the Republicans have 15 votes?

The time for offensive action passed November 7, 2005. You can propose offensive bills until you are blue in the face; but they aren't going anywhere without the cooperation of the Democratic leadership and I don't see Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy and John Conyers signing on to this.

 

[Justin]

Get madder people!!!

No.

Get active.

Write, email, and, dare I say it, pick up the phone and make a call.

 

[emitt1]

Check out HR1096.

 

[tcgeol]

Bartholomew Roberts, earlier you said that we shouldn't contact our congressman yet if they are not on the committee. Is this still the case, or should I start writing?

 

[tulsamal]

OK - still doesn't seem to be enough anger on this:

Why? Do you us to to waste our limited time and energy on something that is no threat whatsoever?

Answer these questions:

Who are the co-sponsors of this bill?

Is this the same bill she introduces every year even when the GOP was in the majority?

When are the scheduled hearings on the bill?

When is the vote for it to pass the committee and move to the floor?

Is the Democratic leadership talking about this bill as a legislative priority?

So let's see. The answers would be none, yes, not scheduled, not scheduled, and no.

A Representative or Senator has a finite amount of time in a day. Do you really want to be calling or writing them and demanding "special attention" on a bill with a zero percent chance of passing? I personally think you could use all that angst toward something else!

Gregg

 

[illspirit]

If the officer is authorized by the department to purchase an assault weapon with his own money, he is exempted from the ban for on or off-duty use.

Also I made an error, retired law enforcement officers may keep a banned AW upon retirement if their agency allows it. However, they are prohibited from keeping any large capacity magazines after retirement.

Ah, righto. I was thinking that the standard exemption for law enforcement only applied to "official use." But since it doesn't, and retired officers are still exempt, it begs the question: Why are they allowed to keep their toys if an "assault weapon's" only purpose is "to kill lots of people?"


And on another note... Seeing as 1022 would ban any "assault parts," would this not make airsofters into felons too since there are a bunch of accessories which are ostensibly interchangeable with real firearms? While they may not be tough enough to use reliably on a real rifle, a bunch of those copy/bootleg/knockoff parts like railed forearms, detachable front grips, and sometimes even stocks are the same mechanically.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bartholomew Roberts, earlier you said that we shouldn't contact our congressman yet if they are not on the committee. Is this still the case, or should I start writing?

I'd hold off your contacting your Congressman about H.R. 1022 if he is not on the Committee still; but I would start buttering him up for a letter concerning H.R. 1022. Think of something that they have done that you have approved of and send them a letter thanking them on that. Figure out who you need to contact if you don't know it already and have a rough draft of what you want to send ready to go.

Why? Do you us to to waste our limited time and energy on something that is no threat whatsoever?

Is your time and energy so limited you can't write a letter? Do we lose something by writing that letter?

Answer these questions:

Who are the co-sponsors of this bill?

Presumably, the same 94 people who co-sponsored it last Congressional session (including 14 House Judiciary Committee members). Of course last session, the bill sat in Committee for a month before she had a single co-sponsor - so judging this bill's future progress by its current status is probably not wise.

Is this the same bill she introduces every year even when the GOP was in the majority?

Yes, this is the same bill that she introduced in both 2003 and 2005 - both times receiving more co-sponsors than Schumer's 1994 AWB that passed the House 216-214. The difference being that it is very hard to move something out of committee when your party isn't the majority. That isn't the case anymore and it looks like she has at least 17 votes to pass the committee.

When are the scheduled hearings on the bill? When is the vote for it to pass the committee and move to the floor?

I don't know that either has been scheduled so far; but I think you are mixing up two different points here. If your point is "I think it is too early to act so I am not going to do anything NOW" then you might be right. If your point is "Nothing will happen with this bill THIS SESSION" then I think you aren't analyzing all the information well.

And on another note... Seeing as 1022 would ban any "assault parts," would this not make airsofters into felons too since there are a bunch of accessories which are ostensibly interchangeable with real firearms? While they may not be tough enough to use reliably on a real rifle, a bunch of those copy/bootleg/knockoff parts like railed forearms, detachable front grips, and sometimes even stocks are the same mechanically.

That is an excellent point. I imagine that part of the legislation would ban a lot of Airsoft gear if it had any potential to be used on a real firearm. I'd be surprised if the pistol grip on an Airsoft rifle is that different from a real rifle for example.

 

[Gifted]

When it comes up for vote, put in an amendment that says that this supercedes 922o and the import bans. Not sure how it would be worded, but make sure it says anything can be transfered with the tax. After that, why bother with a semi clone when you can buy the real thing? Ten years of rock and roll would be fun.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

You guys are completely overreacting.


The Democrats won the House and the Senate Majority with Pro-Gun Democrats taking those seats. So in reality, we are still in the pro-gun majority, because the swing votes that gave the Democrats the majority are all pro-gun. So the Democrats didn't gain on that issue!!!!! We're still in control.

 

[jpk1md]

As per the House Judicial Committee no action/reading/hearing has been scheduled at this point.

They are supposed to post all/part of the March schedule later today/tonight.

http://judiciary.house.gov/schedule.aspx

None of the biggies (NRA, GOA or JPFO) have posted anything on their websites.

Call your reps and make a polite statement that you oppose this bill and expect them to vote against it if it gets out of the House Judicial Committee. Remind them politely that you are keeping track of how they vote on the issues and that in the next election you will not be able to cast a vote for ANY politician that fails to uphold the Second Ammendment and the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold by voting for ANY anti-2A Issues including but not limited to HR 1022 (Assault Weapons Ban), Expansion of NICS Bill, Loophole law for Gun Shows etc etc etc.

We MUST REMAIN POLITE AND PROFESSIONAL (but firm). Nothing does more harm than coming across as a rabid lunatic....these folks are professional career politicians and more than anything they want a job next election......politely remind them you will remember how they voted on these issues....

Sic 'em!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

When it comes up for vote, put in an amendment that says that this supercedes 922o and the import bans.

It is extremely difficult to amend a bill in the House unless your party is the majority. The amendment has to be done in Committee, not on the House floor.

Even if pro-gun Representatives comprised a majority of the House, the leadership of the key positions is filled by anti-gun Dems, so a poison-pill amendment in the House is highly unlikely to succeed. In the Senate, we stand a better chance, provided we can get the 50 votes for such a measure.

 

[shield20]

Some messages are getting through! Huge majority of these are re:1022

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/letterlist/?issue=23


Issues and Action: Guns/Weapons

In the "Guns/Weapons" issue area: Alerts Letters Votes Bills Organizations

The positions promoted here are not necessarily supported by Congress.org.

[2182 letters, showing 1-10 Next]

 

[High Planes Drifter]

You guys are completely overreacting.


The Democrats won the House and the Senate Majority with Pro-Gun Democrats taking those seats. So in reality, we are still in the pro-gun majority, because the swing votes that gave the Democrats the majority are all pro-gun. So the Democrats didn't gain on that issue!!!!! We're still in control.

I hope you're right on that. Im sure we all hope you're right on that.

 

[Texfire]

Just so happens that our Congressman in District 21 is the Ranking Member on that committee. Here's the email I sent to him.

Honorable Congressman Lamar Smith-

Congressman Smith I am glad to see that you are in a position to render your constituents a service by hindering the progress of an extremely flawed piece of legislation, specifically H.B. 1022, the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007".

Putting aside the Second Amendment implications of a poorly written bill that could effectively ban every semi-automatic rifle currently manufactured, this legislation is based on flawed concepts.

Two of the assumptions that HB 1022 is based on are:
1- Assault Weapon Bans lower violent crime.
2- Criminals follow the law purchasing weapons.

The first assumption is not supported by Department of Justice statistics either during the period that the last AWB was in effect, or in the period afterwards where proponents warned that "the streets will be awash in blood". As we now know, that did not happen. The second assumption, that criminals follow any laws except as a matter of convenience is a laughable one.

I understand that opposition to this bill will put you in conflict with several of your fellow committee members, seventeen of which have previously said that they would support another AWB, and fourteen of those put proof to those words by co-sponsoring similar legislation. Perhaps you can sway them by reminding them of the words spoken by then President Clinton who stated that "the fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress."

Their newfound majority was due to the votes of disaffected Republicans, swing voters and Pro-gun Democrats; none of whom want to see their rights as citizens trampled by an anti-gun Democratic leadership. I hope as one of your constituents, that I can depend on you to help defend us from frivolous and harmful legislation like this that would attempt to make criminals out of law abiding citizens.

Yours,

Tex

 

[bsf]

It is extremely difficult to amend a bill in the House unless your party is the majority. The amendment has to be done in Committee, not on the House floor.

Even if pro-gun Representatives comprised a majority of the House, the leadership of the key positions is filled by anti-gun Dems, so a poison-pill amendment in the House is highly unlikely to succeed. In the Senate, we stand a better chance, provided we can get the 50 votes for such a measure.

Actually, I am hoping for just the opposite of what you discuss as being likely. I am hoping that anti-RKBA Democrat Representatives and RINO’s, giddy with their new power, amend the bill by including a provision for banning all but single shot rifles and/or shotguns. Based on what I see within the gun owner demographic, I believe that the incremental approach to destroying the 2A will not be defeated. Maybe something like this would actually mobilize the sheep within the gun owner demographic. If the bill(s) made it through the House, Senate, possibly conference, bla bla, and was signed, I would just sit back and watch the show. If gun owners did not flex their muscle to successfully have it repealed quickly, or after the ’08 elections, then I would just accept the war was lost. In fact, there would be nothing I would enjoy more than to kick my feet up and eat some potato chips while some hunters who previously never lifted a finger to protect the 2A, and maybe hunting in general, screamed at me to do something to help them undo this wrong. The looks of confusion and anger on their collective dumb cow-eyed faces would amuse me.

Note I use the term demographic instead of community. Though I may be a gun owner, I feel no kinship with the dead weight. Though I would be pleased if anti-RKBA gun owners would see the light, in all honesty, they make me want to puke.

Just so you know, I am not at the kick my feet up and relax point, yet. I will strive to be an informed voter; contact my elected reps; and make efforts to guide some of the anti’s to the light. At some point though, I am going to let people dig their own graves. Flame me if you want. I can handle it.

 

[Glockfan.45]

I bet you would see more anger and responce to this if their were no grandfathering of these guys personal collections.

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

lol, if they only knew what this ban was doing to people. I know I am not the only one who is buying any gun that is likely to be banned that I can afford and then some. This possible ban is causing a large amount of people to stockpile as many magazines and ammunition as they can afford. You know if there was no chance for a ban I certainly wouldnt be buying as much stuff. The possibility of this ban seems to be strongly impacting the sale of guns,mags, ammo, etc.

 

[Ridgeway]

lol, if they only knew what this ban was doing to people. I know I am not the only one who is buying any gun that is likely to be banned that I can afford and then some. This possible ban is causing a large amount of people to stockpile as many magazines and ammunition as they can afford. You know if there was no chance for a ban I certainly wouldnt be buying as much stuff. The possibility of this ban seems to be strongly impacting the sale of guns,mags, ammo, etc

I wonder if some of the gun shop/companies don't relish it just a bit b/c of that.
I likewise have set some $ aside just in case, to purchase a couple soon to be "assault weapons."

But in the end I suppose the companies stand to lose more in this ban, unlike the last one where there was [I assume] a surge & then continued purchasing due to the ineffective law. This one I would think would be more staunchly opposed by the major players do to outright bans on new weapons, that can not be otherwise modified to be legal, ex. 556, ps90.