part of an NRA alert received this evening

Status
Not open for further replies.

alan

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
sowest pa.
NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 14, No. 8 02/23/07

States with updates this issue: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.


THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."

McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")

. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."

. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!

You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

The following is a repeat from the beginning of the NRA alert:
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."

Re reference to "and for other purposes", one does wonder as to exactly what, in plain English, these "other purposes" might possibly be. Perhaps some of our "congress critters" might be able to offer clarification. Directing questions to members of The Congress might prove worth while. A TOLL FREE number for CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD IS 1-866-220-0044. Interested parties might consider using making use of it.
 
Last edited:
Well my guess is that they have been having their lawyers look at this to see what it does; plus since McCarthy introduced it prior to a 3-day weekend, I imagine a lot of the people on the Hill were gone on vacation (or extended vacations in some cases).

The bill is really badly drafted so it could take some time to sort out. There are so many aspects of it that are vague that it is tough to argue exactly what it does in a lot of places.

To use just one example, I thought (and apparently NRA does too) that there was no sunset in this bill. However I talked to several lawyers and they were all in universal agreement that it does sunset. NRA on the other hand appears to have looked at the same legislation and reached the conclusion it doesn't sunset.
 
Ready, they did it in Canada, to an extent. They don't go after YOUR gun, they just make sure that no-one after you can ever get one like it.

Where I am there's a class of firearms owners called 'prohibited' and they have their own sub-economy, as only they can buy each other's guns. Since no one can become a prohib owner that wasn't already one before the ban started (except for inheritance?) eventually there will be no 'prohibited' owners left.

It's a great little system, you get to keep your guns, so you don't fight like your back is to a wall. And the anti's just wait for you and all your class to die off, and they're another step closer to ultimate victory.

If they offer a deal like that, DON'T TAKE IT!
 
Bart wrote:
Well my guess is that they have been having their lawyers look at this

I am not a lawyer.

I read, "H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes" and puked down the front of my shirt. :barf: That was within some 24 hours of the bill being filed.

I received an email from the NRA yesterday, 11 days after the fact. Why not a note, "Hey they're at it again. More info as it becomes available" within a day or two?

Is it really that hard for the NRA to see the enemy? Yes I am a member.
 
Is it really that hard for the NRA to see the enemy? Yes I am a member.

I too, am a member{life at that} but I sincerely believe that a large element of the NRA Board are "Loyal Opposition".


The NRA makes more money when gun bans are in place, period.
 
The NRA makes more money when gun bans are in place, period.

The NRA is a not-for-profit corporation. It can't "make money." That's no reason to change your mind, of course, even though what you imply is impossible. Sincere beliefs important. They are better than insincere beliefs.
 
Having been a LIFE MEMBER since 1973, I have, at times wondered concerning positions taken by the NRA, as well as by actions undertaken or not, as the case might have been.
 
The NRA needs to let its members vote on every matter before taking any action, to make sure that all of us agree with its administration and lawyers. It should require unanimous approval of everything so none of us are unhappy. People who are not NRA members should be allowed to vote too, to make sure that no one is left out. These votes should not prevent the NRA from taking immediate action.

It is also important for the NRA and the ILA to stop badgering members for money to fight attacks on our gun rights. Even though federal law prohibits the NRA from using member dues or other funds for that purpose there is no reason why the NRA should not use member dues or other funds for that purpose. If the NRA runs short of money, Wayne LaPierre and other NRA employees should dig into their own fat wallets for it instead of bothering members. We have better things to do with our money, especially since ammunition prices are increasing. I place the blame squarely on the NRA for the increase in ammunition costs and also for its decreasing accuracy, which I can prove at anytime on the range.
 
Folks, this is way too early to be microanalyzing minutiae in the prospective langauge.

Of course the bill is worrisome.

However, lots of the stuff thrown into this bill is *intentionally* offensive and is inserted to be given up as trading material.

This has been common at the state level here in CA, and our local idiots at the CRPA think they've achieved something when the throwaway stuff gets thrown away, and then they separate from NRA and give the appearance that a given antigun bill's opposition is 'fragmented'.

Nothing is what it seems.

Some of the proposals in the bill may be 'payback' to various campaign contributors ("see, I'm trying...") besides being throwaways.

With the massive Zumbo outcry, and our revenge in 1994 for the first AWB, I don't think a new one will make it thru but that's no reason not to be vigilant.




Bill Wiese
San Jose
 
billwiese, and others:

At the risk of repeating myself, and not withstanding the "throwaways" Mr.Wiese mentions, how often do we have to hear it, from their own mouths at that, that the ultimate and unchanging goals of the anti gunners are THE TOTAL PROSCRIPTION OF FIREARMS.

They really do mean it, though they have realized that piecemeal is the way to go. A slice or two here, a slice or two there and before all that long, there isn't anything left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top