New AWB in Pipeline thanks to Joe Biden...

Status
Not open for further replies.
During one of the 2000 Bush vs. Gore debates Shrubbie said he'd sign the reauthorization of the AWB if it got to his desk. The only reason it expired in '04 is that kongress was under repub control and it didn't get there (Shrub's desk) or anywhere else.
Click to expand...

In 2004, the Dems added an AWB renewal provision to the bill limiting lawsuits on firearms manufacturers. The White House publicly called for that provision to be eliminated.

Bush had his "chance" to get an AWB renewal and refused the opportunity.
 
Perhaps this should belong in the Activism forum, but if anyone is a member on any other gun boards, and they haven't been made aware of this bill on those boards, then we need to get the word out. Post a summary of the bill on the other boards so that we can get people to wake up and start calling. A swift response and deludge of letters and calls will make our senators aware that we are watching them.

Let's Zumbo this one.

Find contact info for your Senator (folks, it don't get any easier than this):
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
 
I just emailed my senators. Both of them are on the Judiciary Committee, so hopefully they won't vote it out of there.

Here is my letter:

Senator ________,

I am writing to ask that you do everything in your power to prevent Senate Bill 2237 from leaving the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senate Bill 2237 (Crime Control and Prevention Act of 2007) was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on October 25, 2007. Senator Joe Biden has tried to disguise the bill by changing its name, but the bill is a renewal of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

The Centers for Disease Control released a study finding that there was insufficient evidence to determine that ANY gun control law is or has been effective. (report available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm). There is no indication nor is there any reason to suspect that Senate Bill 2237 will be effective in reducing crime.

Gun bans do not stop criminals from getting guns. Just as prohibition did not stop criminals from drinking, and numerous drug laws have not stopped criminals from getting narcotics such as marijuana and cocaine, Senate Bill 2237 will not stop criminals from getting guns.

Thanks,
Click to expand...
 
Did anyone else read the stuffing in this?!!!!?
Check out section 6 (which is where the AWB is in)
TITLE VI--PREVENTING ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF FIREARMS

Subtitle A--Firearms Background Check Enhancement Act of 2007

Closing the "Gunshow Loophole" again.

There's a lot in here to be very afraid of, and since it's piled all together, the libs can say that any veto is allowing more crime. So far only one co-sponsor, John Kerry.
 
This bill is scary. I dont think it will go anywhere but its best to call our represenatives.

I do believe Bush would sign it into law. Its not like he thinks the Bill of Rights is important anymore.
 
Was there anything in there about grandfathering 'Sturmgewehr' that were owned prior to enacting the law once passed? I didn't see anything when I looked it over. Might have missed it. Or they intend to render hundreds of thousands of people into overnight felons for the mere ownership of an inanimate object.

Edit: Nevermind.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007.

The bill still sucks and needs to be circular filed. I guess he wasn't brave enough to go the whole nine yards and ban all sturmgewehren.

Yeah, this bill will help curb crime.

Time to write my Senators.
 
I wrote my senators. However, I expect a negative response from one of my reps - Bill Nelson of FL. Google him - the Brady's love this guy. :barf:
 
Hmmm... my Senators are Chuckie Schumer, and that socialist female out stumping for absolute power. Guess it couldn't hurt...
 
Last edited:
shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007.
Click to expand...
Sucks if you can't prove when you bought your gun.
 
Definitely worth writing your Congresscritters... if for no other reason than they may start thinking a "little" gun control is OK if this draws less fire than HR 1022 did.
 
Would you be guilty until you could somehow prove yourself innocent?
Click to expand...

Not even in California.

They'd have to prove by the serial number that you couldn't have owned it before the date in question, as long as you have a plausible explanation for how you got it.

"Innocent until proven guilty" still holds in criminal court in the USA.

Now, they could probably destroy the gun, take ownership of your car and your house, and call it a "civil action", like in the "war on drugs", but they couldn't send you to jail.
 
Sucks if you can't prove when you bought your gun.
Click to expand...

What if you bought it via ftf with no papers exchanged? This is perfectly legal in many states.

Would you be guilty until you could somehow prove yourself innocent?
Click to expand...

All of these serial numbers are on file with the company that made the firearm, and no doubt the ATF has easy access to them. This is a mute point.
 
a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
Click to expand...

I guess the esteemed Senator could care less if people that like firearms are able to use them safely...

I thought that a shroud was the shoulder thingy that goes up?
 
Biden is one smart politician.:rolleyes:

What the Democrats really need in 2008 is something to get the rather large and highly-committed bloc of pro-gun voters to quit bickering and unite, as in 1994.

Of course, some people here would continue to oppose the NRA over minutia, but most gun owners wouldn't.
 
All of these serial numbers are on file with the company that made the firearm, and no doubt the ATF has easy access to them. This is a mute point.
Click to expand...
Huh? I must be missing something. All the serial number would prove is when the receiver was made. You can't prove without a bill of sale when the gun became an "assault rifle". Example: You buy a rifle that in stock configuration would be legal under the ban but then modify it preban to make it an "assault rifle". I have an SKS that I played with as a project and had to spend some money on made in USA parts when playing the ten or less game. I have no way of proving when I converted it into an "assault rifle". Serial numbers only date manufacture or possibly sale of parts.
 
It will pass. Bush will sign it.

This will NOT be an easy bill to defeat. Why?

Unlike the last one the new and improved AWB will be given renewed life under some anti-terrorism theme. Call it the "terrorist disarmament act" for instance. Whatever congressman opposes the "terrorist disarmament act of 2008" is going to be pilloried in the press. Opposition will be a political death sentence.

Again - this bill will NOT go down easy. Given the freedoms already sacrificed in the name of national security, I frankly believe its passage is virtually assured. It has NOTHING to do with terrorism, crime control, or prevention. It is simply another offering to the beast's insatiable desire for control.
 
I frankly believe its passage is virtually assured.
Click to expand...

Not so sure... Black rifles are big business now... 100 fold from when the original Assault Rifle Ban was passed.. There will be a signifigant amount of outrage by owners and manufacturers...

Plus we have the Parker case that could potentially nullify all of it.
 
Bush won't sign everything he gets any more.

This is a Democrat-controlled Congress.

No more political pressure to sign whatever comes across his desk.

Hard to say what he'll do, other than whatever the President of Mexico tells him to do.
 
yesit'sloaded-

The government has to prove you did something wrong to get a conviction.

Or they can lie to the jury, I guess.
 
I honestly wouldn't put misrepresentation of something past the ATF. They have been known to monkey with guns until they will slamfire off a double.
 
Sucks if you can't prove when you bought your gun.
Click to expand...

Don't skip the part where it says the new serial numbers have to have the date in them.
`The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of the enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007 shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.'.
Click to expand...

`A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007 shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection
Click to expand...

Any AW or hi-cap mag built after the bill becomes law will be obvious when it was made, anything before will be assumed legal.
 
I honestly wouldn't put misrepresentation of something past the ATF. They have been known to monkey with guns until they will slamfire off a double.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you about corruption, which is a separate issue.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is ostensibly still the law of the land.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
Replies
23
Views
1K
alucard0822
A
C
  • Locked
Have u guys seen this yet??
Replies
19
Views
2K
caseypj
C
J
  • Locked
HR 1859 introduced by Carolyn McCarthy yesterday.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
TexasRifleman
T
D
  • Locked
S645 - Lautenberg's new gun ban (worse than original)
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
Coronach
C
J
  • Locked
H.R.138 Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
Replies
1
Views
368
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Back
Top