H.R. 1022 - AWB II - What is in it? - Updated 2/23 on Page 6
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Danus ex
Member
Write him anyway. I just did. Use the fact that he's on the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to argue that he should support the 2A. He is quoted as saying "I look forward to pursuing a progressive agenda in the committee, including the restoration of American citizens' civil liberties that have come under increasing attack over the past six years." Make it clear that said liberties include those protected by the Second Amendment.
TacMedic4450
Member
I still believe that the only way to effectively counter these measures for good is through the judiciary system. Find a weapon that is used by the us military, currently unavailable to the general public or at least very difficult to obtain (I’m not sure if many M4's were produced before '86 or developed after), fully automatic, and has absolutely no legitimate purpose other than to kill somebody or lots of somebodies (m249, m60 etc.), Sue the government saying they are infringing upon your 2nd amendment rights by effectively preventing you from obtaining said weapon. Just make sure that you don’t attempt to attack the NFA of '34 only the MG ban that was part of '86. This would force the SC to finally look at the 2nd Amendment, and there only conclusion based on factual research would, I believe, coincide with the last opinion about it that was prepared for the AG.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
Diesel man
member
My next gun purchase will be a AK
I hope this bill does not get into law or hell will break loose.
I hope this bill does not get into law or hell will break loose.
smithwr3
Member
I've got 5 so far... but who's counting...Romainian, Sagai 12, Saiga 20, Saiga 762 & and Yugo Krink pistol...
ctdonath
Member
That's your choice. (Yes, there are consequences.)
If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton came out and said that the Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to curb crime, and he attributes signing the ban to losing control of the House, Senate and Presidency for 12 years. Perhaps they need another lesson from gunowners.
Prince Yamato
Member
Ohhhh F, that's a sucky ban. Get ready and call the reps.
bill larry
Member
Well, Im going to spend some money I dont really have just to buy something that will make the liberals heads hurt. Now that they want to ban them, maybe I will go ahead and get an AR or FAL. Or maybe 2 AK's.
gyp_c2
Member
hmmm...
...seems plain that with all the momentum from hashing Mr Zumbo and all, we should be equally as enthusiastic towards this bull****...I'm writing everyone I can think of, to draw as much attention as possible to how I feel about this...I'm still pissed about the 1968 rules, much less the '86, '94 crap...
...seems plain that with all the momentum from hashing Mr Zumbo and all, we should be equally as enthusiastic towards this bull****...I'm writing everyone I can think of, to draw as much attention as possible to how I feel about this...I'm still pissed about the 1968 rules, much less the '86, '94 crap...
MatthewVanitas
Member
Since folks are already jumping the gun on this (due to post-Zumbo euphoria, long may it live), I tossed my hat in.
Lloyd Doggett is a lefty, but it never hurts to nudge folks:
Dang, missed a typo. Aside from that, okay? Decent length? Decent clarity on what I expect from him?
-MV
Lloyd Doggett is a lefty, but it never hurts to nudge folks:
Dang, missed a typo. Aside from that, okay? Decent length? Decent clarity on what I expect from him?
-MV
Nightcrawler
Member
Letters written to my congressman, and the other Utah congressman that's on the committee. Everybody from Utah needs to write this guy!
Honorable Chris Cannon
2436 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-7751
Start calling on Tuesday, too, I'd say.
Honorable Chris Cannon
2436 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-7751
Start calling on Tuesday, too, I'd say.
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007
I know there is already a thread on this, but it has gotten rather large/ungainly & I wanted to bring forth some specific pts, but if necessary just merge this plz.
As I read the text here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
Someone correct me here but I glean that:
1) In regards to grandfathering:
SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.
Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and
(2) by adding after and below the end the following:
`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.
Would this not indicate that everything prior to the enactment of this legislation would be grandfathered? Or does it refer back to the original date in 1994?
edit- query answered in this very thread
2) `(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.
I do not see a thumbhole stock listed. So this new legislation does not go much farther than the last ban, & does not take it to the extremes of cali, thus leaving items such as the USC & PS90 legal, correct?
edit- i guess i missed the mag and ONE other feature...my reading comprehension is lacking this evening...
I know there is already a thread on this, but it has gotten rather large/ungainly & I wanted to bring forth some specific pts, but if necessary just merge this plz.
As I read the text here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022
Someone correct me here but I glean that:
1) In regards to grandfathering:
SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.
Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and
(2) by adding after and below the end the following:
`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.
Would this not indicate that everything prior to the enactment of this legislation would be grandfathered? Or does it refer back to the original date in 1994?
edit- query answered in this very thread
2) `(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.
I do not see a thumbhole stock listed. So this new legislation does not go much farther than the last ban, & does not take it to the extremes of cali, thus leaving items such as the USC & PS90 legal, correct?
edit- i guess i missed the mag and ONE other feature...my reading comprehension is lacking this evening...
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Yes. Firearms possessed prior to the enactment of this legislation would be grandfathered. Keep in mind though that this legislation puts more severe restrictions on grandfathered magazines and firearms (as well as firearm parts).
Check to see how "pistol grip" is defined:
"`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip."
This legislation is much worse than the last ban and arguably worse than the California ban. Both the USC and PS90 are banned by this legislation (semi-autos w/pistol grips and detachable magazines).
Most Democrats do agree that they lost the 2000 elections on guns. Here in Oregon, we Democrats (yeah, I'm one of'em) are working hard to get away from gun control Our Democratic party has just created an official caucus for Democratic owners, and we're actively working within the party to prevent something like this. New York and Massachusetts may be lost causes, but if we focus on swing states like Oregon and Indiana, the story will be different. Pro gun Democrats (and we're not as rare as you think, since polls have us at 31-45% gun ownership rates) need to stand up.
If I can offer some mild advice, don't just call us all dimocrats and go on your way. That alienates people who might come across. I personally have converted at least 4 or 5 Dems/liberals in Oregon to Pro Gun stance. Again this is especially true where you find Democrats that are maybe more libertarian or third party leaning like in swing states.
N
If I can offer some mild advice, don't just call us all dimocrats and go on your way. That alienates people who might come across. I personally have converted at least 4 or 5 Dems/liberals in Oregon to Pro Gun stance. Again this is especially true where you find Democrats that are maybe more libertarian or third party leaning like in swing states.
N
vis-à-vis
Member
He said he would sign the AWB if Congress passed it back in 04. Many here think that was just political manuevering due to Republican control. Hope they are right.
As I understand it, you get to keep them. Read the bill and look at the grandfather clause.
Bush said that if the extension of the original 1994 AWB made it to his desk, he would SIGN IT. I see no reason he would use his VETO power to squash this one-- especially since he has no more votes to get in coming elections.
John
John
carnaby
Member
Hopefully, at the very least then, he won't sign it because it is not just an extension of the 1994 ban.
If true, that means he will never sign anything, because the anti's will never push "just" an extension, but an extension that grabs more guns.
If true, that means he will never sign anything, because the anti's will never push "just" an extension, but an extension that grabs more guns.
The truth
Lo Pan said it best:
http://www.theofficialjohncarpenter.com/data/movies/sounds/btscpiss.wav
I just started getting some of this stuff in the last few years. I've been ticked that I wasn't old enough to get full auto before the ban and my dad was never interested. I won't get caught without if this ban passes.
I'm really concerned about the age restriction. Does that mean it will be illegal to take your kids to the shooting range and teach them to shoot the good stuff if this passes?
Lo Pan said it best:
http://www.theofficialjohncarpenter.com/data/movies/sounds/btscpiss.wav
I just started getting some of this stuff in the last few years. I've been ticked that I wasn't old enough to get full auto before the ban and my dad was never interested. I won't get caught without if this ban passes.
I'm really concerned about the age restriction. Does that mean it will be illegal to take your kids to the shooting range and teach them to shoot the good stuff if this passes?
- Status
Similar threads
