PDA

View Full Version : The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced In Congress


Gumbo
02-27-2007, 06:47 AM
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.

Gumbo
02-27-2007, 06:47 AM
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.

Darren MT unlogged
02-27-2007, 10:27 AM
Wow.

Here in Montana, there is a bill being presented in the legislature to eliminate some our laws restricting the use and possession of firearms, and to add a law that specifically allows for the carrying and use of firearms in self defense. If passed, it will allow for anyone who may lawfully possess a firearm to carry one, including concealed carry, anywhere in the state (except locations restrcited by federal law. Language in the proposed law even allows for people to show or display a firearm if they feel threatened.

The original proposed bill really loosened up laws regulating firearms. To address law enforcement concerns, it has been revised and tightened up a little. There is a great deal of support for this bill in the House, which it is expected to pass and be transferred to the Senate soon. It's very interesting indeed, and certainly goes against the trend in much of the country to tighten up gun laws.

For reference, I have attached the proposal, which shows the amendments that have been made. But, it's indicative of the sentiment here in Montana! It interesting reading.


http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0340.htm

Darren MT unlogged
02-27-2007, 10:27 AM
Wow.

Here in Montana, there is a bill being presented in the legislature to eliminate some our laws restricting the use and possession of firearms, and to add a law that specifically allows for the carrying and use of firearms in self defense. If passed, it will allow for anyone who may lawfully possess a firearm to carry one, including concealed carry, anywhere in the state (except locations restrcited by federal law. Language in the proposed law even allows for people to show or display a firearm if they feel threatened.

The original proposed bill really loosened up laws regulating firearms. To address law enforcement concerns, it has been revised and tightened up a little. There is a great deal of support for this bill in the House, which it is expected to pass and be transferred to the Senate soon. It's very interesting indeed, and certainly goes against the trend in much of the country to tighten up gun laws.

For reference, I have attached the proposal, which shows the amendments that have been made. But, it's indicative of the sentiment here in Montana! It interesting reading.


http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0340.htm

Darren MT unlogged
02-27-2007, 10:30 AM
For clarification....people will be allowed to carry guns without a permit. The proposed law would eliminate our current law requiring a permit for concealed carry.

Darren MT unlogged
02-27-2007, 10:30 AM
For clarification....people will be allowed to carry guns without a permit. The proposed law would eliminate our current law requiring a permit for concealed carry.

T Mac
02-27-2007, 10:49 AM
These people don't seem to notice gun registrations and bans have not worked anywhere else in the world.

Like Larry the Cable guys says-
If you blame guns for people getting shot, then I can blame my pencil for my spelling errors.

T Mac
02-27-2007, 10:49 AM
These people don't seem to notice gun registrations and bans have not worked anywhere else in the world.

Like Larry the Cable guys says-
If you blame guns for people getting shot, then I can blame my pencil for my spelling errors.

FuzzyIL
02-27-2007, 10:53 AM
Guns don't kill. Bullets do.

FuzzyIL
02-27-2007, 10:53 AM
Guns don't kill. Bullets do.

T Mac
02-27-2007, 11:08 AM
People do.

T Mac
02-27-2007, 11:08 AM
People do.

go ranger
02-27-2007, 11:27 AM
Was it Larry the Cable Guy that said, "Guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do" :-)
:banging:

go ranger
02-27-2007, 11:27 AM
Was it Larry the Cable Guy that said, "Guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do" :-)
:banging:

babamel2
02-27-2007, 11:55 AM
I thought this was not to be a political forum

babamel2
02-27-2007, 11:55 AM
I thought this was not to be a political forum

What did you expect
02-27-2007, 12:01 PM
What did you expect with the new Congress? Banning guns just causes the number sold to rise. People rush out to purchase the guns before they are banned.

What did you expect
02-27-2007, 12:01 PM
What did you expect with the new Congress? Banning guns just causes the number sold to rise. People rush out to purchase the guns before they are banned.