Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rifle Owners and the Renewal of the Assault Weapon Ban

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Justin, May 21, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    This is a fairly concise summation of what the new ban means for rifle owners. Please read over it to familiarize yourself with what is involved, and then please take action. If we work together we can defeat this!
    ______________________________

    Rifle Owners and the renewal of the Assault Weapon Ban

    HR 2038, the new proposal for renewing and expanding the 1994 ban on so-called assault weapons has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately it has a bunch of stuff that can and will make ownership of semi-automatic rifles more difficult. For a copy of this bill, please go to http://thomas.loc.gov and do a search for HR 2038

    The AR15, FAL, and AR10 are mentioned by name along with a bunch of Kalashnikov clones, and the features listed all but put the M1 Garand and M1A on the endangered species list. Also, those with fixed-magazine guns are not left untouched. If you have a rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you have an assault rifle. So you can no longer skirt the law by attaching those 30-round fixed magazines to an SKS, and might, in fact, be committing a felony if you try to sell that rifle.

    In addition to the expanded list, they have also made the definition of what constitutes an “assault†rifle more all-encompassing. An assault rifle is defined (by the law) as:

    Note that the weapon only needs to have one of the so-called ‘evil’ features to be defined as an assault weapon, whereas in the current law a rifle can have two.

    Here’s the real kicker to the whole thing, though: The sporting purposes clause is nowhere near ironclad. In fact, it reads:

    In other words, just because a particular firearm is suited for a particular sport is no guarantee that it is suited for a particular sport, at least as far as can and will be determined by some lackey working in the AG’s office, who undoubtedly has far more insight into the shooting sports than any of us. If a particular sporting weapon is derived from a military design, then it is considered to be suspect.

    Of course, the above is only in relation to rifles and whether or not they are particularly suited to a given sport. As far as one’s right to self-defense and the use of a firearm thereof, you’re out of luck as this law makes the assumption that the only valid reason for possessing a firearm is for competition or hunting.

    This bill also has a lot more content that would impact rifle owners, including making it illegal to sell a weapon to another individual (even in state) without going through an FFL. It would also make it illegal for anyone to sell a pre-ban magazine without first filing paperwork with the Attorney General’s office, as well as shifting the burden of proof from the government to the individual over whether a particular magazine in your collection is indeed a pre-ban or an illegal post-ban.

    For more in-depth information, please go to the following link:
    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23494

    Please feel free to distribute this post to other forums or people who need to know this information. All I ask is that the info not be modified. (Though feedback for subsequent drafts is appreciated.)
     
  2. gun-fucious

    gun-fucious Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,977
    Location:
    centre of the PA
    are tube fed rimfires still exempt from magazine capacity issues?
     
  3. yzguy

    yzguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    589
    Location:
    Fl
    this is utterly ridiculous.... it would be very helpful if we could add to this post everything we could do to stop this now!!! (things like links to phone numbers and such...)

    If we all flooded each representative with calls, email, and letters MAYBE they will get the point....

    also we need to set up a watch on who does vote for it, and make them gone when the time comes....
     
  4. Onslaught

    Onslaught Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,006
    Location:
    Georgia
    Yes....

    FOR NOW!

    :scrutiny:
     
  5. CMcDermott

    CMcDermott Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    Broomfield CO, USA
    Is there an exemption for lever action rifles? Many of the pistol caliber rifles used in the Cowboy action events will accept more than 10 rounds in their magazines. And as the Spencer and Henry were used by Union forces in the Civil War I think that lever action guns could be interpreted as military weapons if the AG wanted.
     
  6. Onslaught

    Onslaught Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,006
    Location:
    Georgia
    I'm terrible at choosing the proper words for such occasions, so if any of the notably articulate members of this board would like to offer a "form" letter that we could all copy and send, I'd be most grateful.

    In the interim, here's my e-mail to Sanford Bishop, the evil Judas of my Great State. For those of you who don't remember, Sanford was the TIE-BREAKING VOTE for the original AWB in the House 10 years ago!

    "It has been said that insanity is defined as doing the same thing but expecting different results.

    You personally let your People, your Party, and your State down when you were the tie-breaking vote for the 1994 "assault weapons ban" legislation. In the ten years that this ridiculous piece of legislation has been in place, it has not changed the face of violent crime in our country. There were, and still are so very few cases of criminals using "assault weapons" in the first place that it was just plain silly to bother going after these weapons. Only the highly publicized nature of these dramatic events along with the fact that these weapons were easily villianized to the uneducated non-gun owning public has given the anti-gun movement any steam to ban them in the first place.

    The only truely safe legislation that has been enacted lately which has made our State safer was the passage of additional "reciprocation" agreements between States regarding the Concealed Carry Permits that our great State issues. I can now travel through Alabama and South Carolina as well as Florida and other reciprocating States and be able to protect my wife and 14 month old daughter should we ever be in danger along side of any of the long, lonely, deserted stretches of highway with a flat tire or other car trouble. There is little opportunity for a criminal or criminals to take advantage of my family during a situation of increased vulnerability and isolation such as this, because my wife and I both posess GA concealed carry permits, small sized, decent caliber pistols with properly fitted holsters acceptable for concealed carry, and the training required to use them properly.

    Please do not vote to take away even more of your People's rights to keep and bear arms. This latest legislation will not only take away permanently those weapons incorrectly called "assault weapons", but it also adds to it a whole new class of firearms that are more "mainstream", owned by more of the State's population, and infringe even further on our rights. Not one sniper, school shooter, or California bank robber is going to be averted by this piece of legislation. But how many of Georgia's thousands of unchecked parolees and early release violent criminals will be stopped from committing their crimes with this? None.

    Do the right thing Mr. Bishop. Vote NO on HR2038 and let the 1994 "assault weapons ban" die.

    Thank you,

    Steve Slaughter
    Proud resident of the Free State of Georgia"

    Oh well, I tried :)
     
  7. ShaiVong

    ShaiVong Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,106
    Location:
    Raccoon City, USA
    I've never been so pissed. :banghead: :cuss: :fire:

    Did I ever mention that i HATE our government, and the gibbering simps that think they can push me around and tell me what I can and cannot think and have? I thought that was all over when i moved away from my parents!:cuss:
     
  8. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    There is a specific exemption for tube-fed .22's:

    As for lever-action, pump-action, and bolt-action rifles, those are still Kosher, at least for the time being.

    However, take a look at the sporting purposes clause again. Even though the specific legislation bans semiautos, there is nothing in the sporting purposes clause that precludes them from including manually-operated firearms at some point in the future.

    Oh, and one last thing: we got kind of lucky last time around when Ruger convinced them to leave the Mini-14 off of the list. There's no such luck this time. The Mini-14 is banned by name.
     
  9. Chairman Meow

    Chairman Meow Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    :fire: to say the least.
     
  10. ajacobs

    ajacobs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    519
    Location:
    VT, USA

    I am pretty sure the current law also only allows one but the list now includes foreward grip but interestinly enough does not include flash suppressors.
     
  11. yzguy

    yzguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    589
    Location:
    Fl
    I believe this would be better stated as:

    Note that the weapon only needs to have one of the so-called ‘evil’ features to be defined as an assault weapon, whereas in the current law a rifle must have two to be considered an assault weapon (there fore only having one is legal).
     
  12. yzguy

    yzguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    589
    Location:
    Fl
    it does not include flash suppressors, but does say no threaded barrels.... So you would have to permanatly attach anything that you wanted to put on the barrel (break, or suppressor of any kind)
     
  13. HankL

    HankL Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    462
    Location:
    The Sunny South
    Boys and girls, When bills of this nature are introduced it is not the time to wonder if it will have an effect on your 32 20 carbine etc. It is time to worry about your gun rights in general.

    As Justin has stated, this bill as most of the ones like it in the past includes language that gives the U.S. Attorney General the power to say what he think's are appropriate firearms for the sheeple of our country. If a bill like this should pass, todays AG might say your 11 round tube magazine lever action is ok. Tomorrow's AG might say that your break action shotgun is an assault weapon if the owner has a shell vest in their possesion.

    Call and write your representatives in Washington and let them know your feelings.

    Here is a LINK on the subject.
     
  14. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    thank you

    for reminding me how much I hate anti-gun politicians. Some antis are just ignorant, but these people are cynical scum.
     
  15. El Rojo

    El Rojo Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,541
    Location:
    The People's Republik of **********
    This is very interesting for us PRK residents. You are looking at the horror we have been living with. I don't know whether to laugh or what. Part of it is amusing because many of you bad mouth the PRK and how liberal we are. And true to what so many of us said, the PRK is just the test basin for what is to come. So here is the test. What will happen? I will do my part for you free citizens. I will contact my congressman and tell him to not support those bills, even though they have zero bearing on his constiuency. However, this whole thing is just a bit scary for both sides. The anti-gunners are really scared. They know there is a good chance this thing isn't going to go through. I also know you people in free territory are scared too, if this thing passes congress, Bush is probably going to sign it. So all that bad mouthing of California and your rights go right down the drain.

    Regardless I am screwed already. I already live in that reality. I sure hope you guys keep you what you have. Now maybe some of you narrow minded sorts will stop encouraging people to move out of the PRK and to abandon the cause. If you don't stop this insanity here, it just spreads. You have to kill the disease at its source. That source is Los Angeles County and the San Fransisco Bay area. Good luck. I hope you get to keep your ARs and AKs. :what:
     
  16. Mark Tyson

    Mark Tyson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,523
    Location:
    Where the one eyed man is king
    El Rojo,

    I do not think the people here intend to bad mouth Californians for the sorry state of your government. I think I speak for most when I say that we all see this kind of legislation working its way inland from the coasts. We all knew this stuff was coming, it was only a matter of time.

    I wish there was something that I could do for those of you in CA. But I can't just move out to CA (not to mention give up most of my collection) just to join the fight. I hope that one day Californians will be free to enjoy their rights again.
     
  17. yzguy

    yzguy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    589
    Location:
    Fl
    here is the letter I will be sending out to many (feel free to use any of it):

    Dear Elected Official,

    I am writing this letter to urge you to OPPOSE ANY new legislation that in any way tries to extend the “Assault Weapons†ban. I am referring specifically to H. R. 2038 in this case.

    This ban from the start has been useless. All it does is restrict law abiding citizens, such as myself, from legally obtaining certain firearms. Criminals could still easily make these illegal "Assault Weapons" using legal parts and Legal firearms. Any type of "assault weapons" ban would just not work anyway. Guns that are used in crimes simply are not purchased legally. Less than 14% of all firearms possessed by State inmates in 1997 (and less than 21% in 1991) were obtained from a Retail store, Pawn Shop, Flea market, or Gun show. Friends or Family, and Street/illegal Sources account for how the rest of them are obtained. Laws regulating specific features of firearms do not do ANYTHING to stop these. Criminals don't worry about whether the configuration of their weapon is legal, it does not affect them in the least. Law abiding citizens on the other hand do have to think about these things, and are kept from having exactly what they would like.

    reference for the percentages of how weapons are obtained:
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

    The fact that the ban does not affect criminals is beside the point, because less than 2% of all Criminals used any type of military style weapon (including the politically defined "assault weapons"). From 1976 to the year 2000, there have been only 2 years (97 and 99) where the combined total of ALL non hand gun homicides (this would include all "assault weapons") were greater than that of knives. Even in those 2 years it was VERY close. In EVERY one of these years, Hand gun homicides more than doubled non hand gun homicides. ANY ban on ANY rifle, is just not needed, they are just not used in crimes more than even the common knife (I would bet EVERY citizen has access to a knife). Criminals don't use them because they are large and hard to conceal.

    references for the 2% claim:
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

    references for the homicide claims:
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

    Any form of the "assault weapons" ban is also unconstitutional (I am utterly appalled that it passed in 94). Does this sound familiar?
    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Does it sound like the founding fathers are talking about hunting to you??

    this one section of the bill is also terribly vague (as well as unconstitutional):

    "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.'."

    So now the Attorney General can just one day decide any rifle is now an "assault rifle"??

    Military style rifles are EXACTLY what the constitution is intending to protect. Do politicians think that the "well regulated militia" that is being referred to in the constitution is concerned with hunting? or sports?

    Regarding the Magazine Capacity limit, if yours and the life of your family were in immediate danger and you were forced to defend them, would YOU want to be limited to 10 rounds? I would not. If you have body guard(s) would you want their collective ammunition to be only 10 rounds? Most of us don't have others protecting us, and the police will not be there until it is to late.

    ANY support you show for ANY legislature supporting ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY RESEMBLING an "assault weapons" ban, will cost you my vote. Since you are supposed to be MY elected official, I hope you will take the time to read and understand my point. Please do the correct thing and support the constitution as it was written.

    I also challenge you to provide ANY data showing criminals use of "assault weapons" and the need to ban them. I have given you my references (which I hope you take time to check), do you have ANY evidence or even a reason to ban these? (other than because of the way they look).

    I look forward to your response on this matter, in which I hope you make clear to me your exact position on this bill in particular, so I may keep it in mind during the next election.

    Sincerely,
    Your name

    *edited to correct spelling mistake*
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2003
  18. ShaiVong

    ShaiVong Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,106
    Location:
    Raccoon City, USA
    I was planning on getting a Remmington 700 in 308 this summer, and getting an AR next summer, or when i graduate. Now i'm definately getting one this summer. Probably an AK too, even though im not all that fond of them.

    MOLON LABE **CKERS! :fire:
     
  19. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,685
    Threaded barrel. Most guns have "threaded" barrels and that's how they go into the receiver (OK, some like the HK or AK aren't). :rolleyes:

    We have to let this critter die. 10 years of sterlizied toys is enough. Time to put the evil muzzle brakes, bayonet lugs and collaspable stocks on. One of our members once asked, "When was the last time a civilian participated in a bayonet charge?"
     
  20. Kaylee

    Kaylee Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,749
    Location:
    The Last Homely House
    yz -- nice letter! Thank you!

    -K
     
  21. Correia

    Correia Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    10,648
    Location:
    SLC
    Here are some numbers to call to leave comments.

    Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (202) 225-2976
    House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (202) 225-5951
    Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (202) 224-3344
    White House (202) 456-1111
    Capitol Switchboard (to get in contact with your specific reps in Washington) 1-800-648-3516.

    Plus look up you reps mailing addresses and contact them via mail as well. Every bit helps. I just sent off another round of letters to Hastert, DeLay, Frist, the RNC, Hatch, Bennett, and Cannon. (last 3 are my reps).

    Pile it on.
     
  22. Kaylee

    Kaylee Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,749
    Location:
    The Last Homely House
    Thanks Larry.. just did the same today as well.

    Okay y'all.. 700+ views. Y'all HAVE all called those five numbers already, right? ;)


    -K
     
  23. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    Is this bill calling for the turning in of currently owned hi-cap mags and guns as well?
     
  24. 44

    44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    66
    Location:
    USA
    Our women are getting nervous watching the men in office being so sissified and so willing to disarm the men of the country.

    Make no mistake, women want men to have the best weapons available, and enough ammunition. They were the group most in favor of arming airline pilots. And they see what's going on in the streets of Iraq.

    ---------- 44
     
  25. Midnight

    Midnight Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    107
    People, go to the link he provided and read the bill for yourself. Its not that long, nor is it difficult to understand.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page