Remove Feinstein rider from firearms liability bill (Assault Weapons Ban)

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wingnutx

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
1,047
Location
Phoenix, AZ
"The U.S. Senate will soon vote on S.659, a bill that will 'outlaw lawsuits against lawful firearms manufacturers.' This bill will be voted on in one month. Most gun owners consider this bill to be a GOOD thing, but...

Sen. Diane Finesteine put a 'rider' on this bill. The rider number is S.1034.

Its purpose is to permanently repeal the sunset date on the assault weapons ban, to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes. So what does this mean?

If we do nothing and the Senate passes this bill next month, then it's over. Bush will sign it and there will be no sunset of the AW ban.

A vote on this issue in the Senate would be very close, but could go either way. We need every single vote we can get. Please call both of your Senators, urging them to oppose S.1034.

Never called your senators before? Now's a good time to call them. Call (202) 224-2315 and (202) 224-3353. Tell the aides this:

'The Senate will soon be voting on S.659 - a bill that will outlaw lawsuits against lawful firearms manufacturers. Senator Diane Feinstein put a rider on this bill. The rider number is S.1034. This rider MUST be removed from S.659.'"


http://firearmnews.com/page2.asp?id=5378
 
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1034 IS


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1034
To repeal the sunset date on the assault weapons ban, to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 8, 2003
Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To repeal the sunset date on the assault weapons ban, to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET DATE.

Section 110105 of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is amended to read as follows:

`SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

`This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect on September 13, 1994.'.

SEC. 3. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2)' and inserting `(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)';

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `(2) Paragraph (1)' and inserting `(B) Subparagraph (A)';

(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:

`(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'; and

(4) in paragraph (4)--

(A) by striking `(1)' each place it appears and inserting `(1)(A)'; and

(B) by striking `(2)' and inserting `(1)(B)'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 921(a)(31) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994'.
 
Somebody should put a rider on Ms. Feinstein... and post some pics on the Internet of her being ridden. :banghead:
 
The house would have to pass this bill as well.

The bill would have to be reconciled between the house and the senate.

Given the momentum to kill the AWB in the house do you think that this provision or rider would fly???

I don't.
 
The amendment will change law to read:

921
...
(31) The term ''large capacity ammunition feeding device'' -
(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that exemption of pre-'94 manufacture removed has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
...
SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect on September 13, 1994.
Reference to repeal in 2004 removed

922
...
(w)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
(3) This subsection shall not apply to -
(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or
(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.
(4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1)(A) asserts that paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (1)(B) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1)(A) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number as described in section 923(i) of this title shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1)(A).
 
Given the momentum to kill the AWB in the house do you think that this provision or rider would fly???
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I think it just might. It would be a great way for some to avoid having to vote up or down on an explicit AWB bill, and then feign ignorance.
 
Exactly the trap that pro-RKBA forces keep falling into: we almost invariably assume our opponents will engage in a frontal assault on our rights. We keep expecting a straightforward up-or-down vote on a AWB renewal bill. They're smarter than that: this time using a carefully-placed obfuscated rider on a bill we want.

I'm surprised Feinstein used as much verbage as she did; without so much anti-import text it might have been overlooked and passed.
 
I stated on this forum at least a month ago and again, the gun-grabbers will find a way to bring the AWB on the GW-desk and he'll be happy to sign it. It brings more voters from the left!

Who cares about conservatives!
 
ctdonath

Am I reading your post correctly - does the new rider outlaw the possession of ALL "large capacity" magazines after 9/13 1994, with NO grandfathering? If so, we have a VERY large problem - literally millions of gun owners will be instant felons, due to the ex post facto nature of this proposed law. Tell me that I'm reading this incorrectly.

If this is the case, Feinstein is far worse than a mere anti with power - now she wants us all in jail (or dead, after the BATF#ckers get through with us).
 
If we do nothing and the Senate passes this bill next month, then it's over. Bush will sign it and there will be no sunset of the AW ban.
Click to expand...

Both the house and the senate must pass identical versions of the bill. The house passed a version of the bill without the rider. If the senate passes it, it will go back to the house.
 
I wrote to both of Florida's senators and I sent the following to my Congressman as well. BTW, you can find your representatives at congress.org and it even has a section where you can typ up your letter and either send it as email or have it hand delivered for 5$...I chose hand delivered as it makes much more of an impact.

The Honorable Dave Weldon
U.S. House of Representatives
2347 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0915
Representative Weldon:
I am writing because I am concerned about the bill designated S.659 now being reviewed by the Senate. I heartily agree with the main thrust of the bill to limit the nuisance lawsuits for the firearms industry and hope that such a provision can be passed. However, I STRONGLY oppose the addition that Senator Diane Feinstein has made to this bill labelled S.1034 which would make the so called assault weapons ban permanent. In fact I am so strongly opposed to this addition to the bill that I would rather the liability bill die than see it passed with the 1034 rider. The 1034 rider has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the main bill and should be a seperate issue entirely. It is obviously a bid by Feinstein to kill the main bill and/or get some back-door legislation through under the radar. The banning of the mis-labelled assault weapons has been proven by statistics over the last 10 years to have had no effect whatsoever on the crime rate in this country. As usual the crimes committed with guns are mostly committed with stolen guns anyway and with more commonly available pistols. I urge you to watch this bill closely and if it is returned to Congress with the Feinstein rider still attached I request as one of your constituents that you vote down the bill, it is reprehensible to hold law abiding citizens liable for the actions of criminals and to penalize them for same. I am strongly in favor of the US Constitution as it stands and the Bill of Rights in particular and the useless assault weapon ban is a direct infringement of the 2nd amendment which according to all of the speeches and correspondences I have read between the founding fathers covers the INDIVIDUALS right to keep and bear arms without INFRINGEMENT. In conclusion let me say that I will vote for representatives who support the Bill of Rights as a complete document and will work tirelessly to campaign against re-election of anyone that votes against the Constitution & Bill of Rigths of our great republic.

Thank you for your time.
Edward Stapleton
Click to expand...
 
(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Click to expand...
Interesting...one way of interpreting this line would effectively ban all long tubular magazines as well. Why? Because if a tubular mag can hold .22 rimfire rounds, then can it not also hold .17HMR rounds? And if it can hold .17HMR rounds, then it's not excepted from the ban...

The way the exception is phrased, only the magazine needs to be able to hold ammo other than .22 rimfire; there's nothing in there that suggests that the gun the magazine is attached to has to be chambered for .22 rounds.

Can this clause be used as a backdoor way to ban even tubular mags, since they cannot be said to "operate only with .22 rimfile ammunition"?

I hope I'm wrong on this.

More to the point, I hope it doesn't matter whether I'm wrong, because all of this nonsense is defeated and goes away in September.

-BP
 
This topic came up on Glocktalk the other day atleast twice. The concensus is that this is not actually happening. It's just a rumor, possibly so that Pro-Gun people will call and voice opposistion to S.659.

While S.1034 does exist, it does not appear to be attached to S.659 at this point.

Somehow this rumor got started, and everyone is calling their Senator without double-checking to see if this is real or not.

Go to senate.gov, and you can see for yourself. Also, Gunowners of america has nothing regarding this and neither does NRA.org.

Before we all get in a frenzy we need to actually do research from MULTIPLE sources so we don't look like fools to our congress-critters.

I.G.B.
 
Sam Adams:
No, it does not ban ownership, just (!) importation. I was wondering that too while playing Feinstein's cut-and-paste game.

As the AWB stands, any high-cap mag made pre-'94 is by definition NOT a "high capacity ammunition feeding device", but a post-'94 one is.

Feinstein wants to ban importation of all high-cap mags including pre-'94 ones. To do so, she has to remove the date-dependent clause from the HCAFD definition.

There remains an explicit exemption for any HCAFD lawfully owned-in-the-USA pre-ban mags.
 
Balog,

Here is a link to S.659, see for yourself. HERE

Here is a link to the first glocktalk.com thread where this was disproven HERE

Here is a link to the NRA politics page, where NOTHING has been said about there being a rider on S.659 HERE

And here is a link to GOA where NOTHING has been reported about this HERE

The link provided at the top of this thread to firearm news links back to the thomas.loc.gov site and if you go there, you can look at the status of the bill S.1034, or you could just click HERE and see that the last action on S.1034 was on May 8th, 2003.

Everyone needs to relax, and actually research things before spouting rumor as fact.

I.G.B.
 
Okay everyone, put the angry letters away

Well. I feel better already. I can't believe I fell for an internet rumor like that hook, line and sinker.

It occurs to me that the best way to mess with the antis could be to start an internet rumor about a rider being attached to some innocuous bill.
 
WHOA! The information here isn't entirely correct but it is pretty close.

The Senate Calendar has scheduled S.659 for three days of debate starting March 3rd. During that time period, it is widely expected that Senators such as Feinstein, Schumer and McCain will try to attach antigun amendments to S.659.

Neal Knox's January 23rd Alert suggests that Feinstein will try to attach an amendment identical to S.1034 to S.659 during the debate. It is up to us to make sure that doesn't happen by reminding our Senators we WILL be watching them.

Is the original post alarmist and misinformed? Yes. Should you NOT call your Senators - ABSOLUTELY NOT. It hasn't happened yet; but it certainly can. Call them now and make sure it doesn't happen.

Ask that S.659 be passed WITHOUT ANY ANTIGUN AMENDMENTS.
 
Sorry if I propogated a myth, or partial myth. Now is the best time to act, though, BEFORE such a pernicious rider gets attached.

Nip it in the bud.
 
http://firearmnews.com/page2.asp?id=5378
Correction: Feinstein's S.1034 is NOT a rider to S.659

Posted 2/4/2004 from Thomas.Gov printer friendly version

"Correction: Sen. Diane Finesteine's bill, S.1034, is not a rider to S.659, as reported earlier, but rather is a stand alone bill. The purpose is to permanently repeal the sunset date on the assault weapons ban, to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.

We wish to apologize for re-printing this erroneous information. Keep S.1034 in mind, however understand that it was introduced in May of 2003, and wasn't attached to any other bills."

You can read the complete story at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1034:

* an asterik next to the title indicates that the article is on a site that requires a free subscription to access said article
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Feinstein is going to attach a rider to the Lawsuit Protection Bill. AWB 2 in march.
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
fallingblock
F
B
  • Locked
Major Gun Control Effort in Senate - March 6
Replies
7
Views
728
NY Patriot
N
K
  • Locked
Nra-ila: Feinstein Introduces "assault Weapons" Reauthorization Bill
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Bubbles
B
C
  • Locked
Email from Tom Gresham re: S.659
Replies
1
Views
414
Bartholomew Roberts
B
C
  • Locked
Alert-AWB info from MMM website
Replies
3
Views
504
Little Loudmouth
L
Back
Top