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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The time for offensive action passed November 7, 2006.
Click to expand...

So true... just wish the @#$*s in the country realized that on November 5th. :banghead:

We MUST REMAIN POLITE AND PROFESSIONAL (but firm).
Click to expand...

IMO, don't rant and rave, but be firm. Remember, we are these politicians' bosses. They are supposed to serve us, and ultimately they need our votes. I don't think it's unprofessional to be honest by saying that you won't vote for them if they support unconstitutional legislation like this. They may think it's offensive, but it's not a threat. It's just honesty. I won't vote for anyone supporting H.R. 1022 in the next election (nor did I vote for anyone likely to support such a bill in the last election).

I just don't think that our letters like this:

"Dear Honorable Representative XXXX,

Please oppose HR 1022. I know you're rabidly anti-gun, but pretty please?"

letters are going to be taken seriously. I think we should specifically remind them that gun owners are more organized this time around via the internet & that there are more gun organizations and members within those organizations. Remind them that we'll all vote in support of our RKBA (all 90 million of us). Remind them of the total failure of the last AWB.

Just my $.02. We are the bosses.
 
letters are going to be taken seriously. I think we should specifically remind them that gun owners are more organized this time around via the internet & that there are more gun organizations and members within those organizations. Remind them that we'll all vote in support of our RKBA (all 90 million of us). Remind them of the total failure of the last AWB.

Just my $.02. We are the bosses.
Click to expand...

I second that... :)
 
1) There is a sunset clause
Click to expand...
Where? How?

There is a title that promises a 10-year sunset, but IMHO IANAL YMMV there is no implementation of a sunset provision. 1022 does not explicitly state one, nor does it revive the sunset portion of the old AWB.

Please show me wrong.
 
There is a title that promises a 10-year sunset, but IMHO IANAL YMMV there is no implementation of a sunset provision. 1022 does not explicitly state one, nor does it revive the sunset portion of the old AWB.
Click to expand...

The universal read by everybody I asked was that Sec. 2 revives and reinstates the 1994 ban for ten years, making it law of the land as Title 18 USC 922. Sec. 3 then amends Title 18 USC 922 with new text. The new text is silent as to grandfather clause; but that doesn't matter because it is expressly stated in the legislation that the intent is to renew it for only ten years.

This is supported by a read of the original 1994 legislation as well which had a clearly labeled "Effective Date" section in the bill; but did not amend 18 USC 922 in any way to mention the sunset.

The only way to reach a conclusion that Sec. 3 reverses Sec. 2 is to argue that by its silence, Sec. 3 implies a removal of the sunset. However in statutory interpretation you never go by implication when there is express language on the subject. So the express language of Sec. 2 would control.
 
Just did my part and emailed my Alabama Rep. I tried calling as well but no answer at either office. I will try again next week.
 
So far, I have writen to my Representative. He is on the Judiciary Committee and is a very pro-gun Republican. I have also written to the Judiciary Committee as a whole. If this goes further, I will write my Senator. He is a pro-gun Republican too, but it can't hurt. I have told nearly everyone I know about this ban and encouraged them to write to their Representative. Some might even do it. I am not sure what else I can actually do at this point.
 
Since we know most people are extremely lazy, why don't we start some petition letters and have people sign their names to them and mail them in? I may do this at my pistol range and at work.l
 
ctdonath, did you see the latest NRA-ILA alert? Looks like they disagree with the people I talked to... they are saying "no sunset" in their alert.
 
(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.
Click to expand...

anyone with better legal knowledge than mine care to comment on how this section may or may not conflict with US v Miller??
 
Why are you guys getting all worked up? I have it on good authority that Bush's support of the AWB was all a clever trick.
 
it was a clever trick feeb

he said he would sign Clintons old crime bill, knowing it wouldn't get to his desk.
It worked, it was a clever trick.
Well sort of clever, a lot of really stupid liberals thought he said he would sign a new AWB....but some people are really stupid, I call them liberals.
 
I tried following the multiple referencing in Section 2 (title mentions sunset, but no explicit implementation thereof). The core of the old AWB is resurrected, but not the expiration required by the bill enacting the old AWB.

Several have challenged my "there is no sunset clause" claim, but none yet have managed to show where it is.

It's a bait-and-switch: the bait is the title showing intent to sunset, but the switch is that there is no actual implementation of a sunset. Intent don't count if there's no substance at all to back it up.

More detail:

The sunset clause was originally in this part of the act implementing the law:
SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle--
(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years after that date.
Click to expand...
The reference to repeal was not inserted into the actual US Code. AWB II explicitly revives the sections of US Code which vanished upon sunset - but does not revive the old act per se. Thus, no sunset clause.
 
The only way to reach a conclusion that Sec. 3 reverses Sec. 2 is to argue that by its silence, Sec. 3 implies a removal of the sunset. However in statutory interpretation you never go by implication when there is express language on the subject. So the express language of Sec. 2 would control.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't think this is too far of a stretch. Look at how our courts and legislature interpret the express language of the Second Amendment, after all.

Sent a letter to Wexler; knowing him, it's probably at the bottom of some staffer's trashcan. Oh well...
 
Several have challenged my "there is no sunset clause" claim, but none yet have managed to show where it is.
Click to expand...

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

Since there is no conflicting language anywhere else in the bill, I would expect courts to follow the express language. As it was explained to me, it would be difficult to argue that because Section 3 amending the original bill doesn't specify a time to expire there is no time given that language above. You would have to ignore the express language of the legislation in favor of an implied interpretation.

However, looks like NRA reached the same conclusion. If we see the committee report, that should clear up a lot of the confusion. Tough to say with this bill it is so badly drafted.
 
Sink Carolyn McCarthy!

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) is the author of this bill.:cuss:

Sincerely believing that no bad deed should go unpunished, I hereby pledge a minimum of $25 to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's opponent in the next election. It would be icing on the cake if her opponent should be pro-gun...but they get the money in any case.:rolleyes:

Hopefully a whole lot of others across the U.S. will do the same...?:D
 
Rep McCarthy has a really poor track record regarding bills that she introduced where the bill has no co-sponsors (like this one). Of the 89 bills she introduced in the House with no co-sponsor, 83 never made it out of committee. Of the rest, none ever came close to becoming law. I find it interesting that with a track record like that, the people in her district keep re-electing her.

I have to believe that the House has a whole lot more pressing issues right now than taking up a sweeping AWB bill. Pelosi is still trying to build her power base that includes trying to get a free jumbo jet for her and her buddies, the Dims have all sorts of in-fighting going on and Murtha won't shut his mouth.

While there is no doubt that the bill by itself is a threat, I just don't see this getting out of committee and onto the House floor anytime soon. A refined bill would still have to go to the Senate where the Dims don't enjoy as much of a majority. If even a few conservative Dim Senators would cross party lines to vote against a gun control bill, it could die there.

Maybe there neest to be a sticky link to this bill as it moves thru the House.
 
"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."

as for the first part of this statement, I am a member of the Portland pink pistols and we are attacking on both fronts because we have twice as much to be "infringed" upon and as for the second part I am glad you don’t want to have me arrested, but it "sickens" me that some people don’t think I should have every right of any other American just becouse of who i choose to LOVE...
 
Rep McCarthy has a really poor track record regarding bills that she introduced where the bill has no co-sponsors (like this one). Of the 89 bills she introduced in the House with no co-sponsor, 83 never made it out of committee. Of the rest, none ever came close to becoming law.
Click to expand...

How many of those bills were introduced when the House Judiciary Committee was controlled by Democrats? Zero. How many of those bills were introduced when the majority of the House Judiciary Committee was comprised of GOA F- grades? Zero. As the stock market blurbs like to remind us, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.

If we go through this year and McCarthy's bill never leaves committee, then I'll feel relaxed (until 2009 at least); but I think people overlook the importance of the shift of power in the House.
 
This is kinda hilarious.

`(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years; or'.

Haha, 10 years for a semi auto rifle....

`(xix) Tavor;

HAHAHAHAHA, A Tavor. They dont even exist in USA...anywhere...
 
Guys, here's what to do...

Write to your Democrat congresscritter or other representative, about your hopes that this thing, any firearms-restricting legislation, does not make it out of committee.

And your reason, and emphasize this:

"I think that worried hunters and other legal firearms owners have cost us dearly in the past, and this is a fight that can only cost us elections in the future."

Think "Democrat" when you write them or call them or fax them.

Don't go on about "rights." Or the definition of an "assault rifle." That DOES NOT MATTER.

DO NOT WRITE THE THING AS A GUN NUT OR GUN OWNER.

What matters is "this issue can cost us elections."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SharpDog
  • Locked
H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes
Replies
2
Views
406
cosine
C
H
  • Locked
Text of Feinsteins AWB extension
Replies
6
Views
540
DTLoken
D
J
  • Locked
AWB H.R. 1022: FIND REPS HERE INFO
Replies
1
Views
350
Jimmypop97
J
H
  • Locked
Pennsylvania AWB
Replies
11
Views
637
Norton
N
D
  • Locked
SENATE BILL No. 1381 - Michigan AWB bill
Replies
13
Views
612
tc300mag1
T
Back
Top