View Full Version : Well here it comes...
110th U.S. Congress (2007-2008)
H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and
for other purposes
HR 1022 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1022
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other
purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, 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 and
Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED
CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND
LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed-
Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a),
subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922,
and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title
18, United States Code, as in effect just before the
repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby
enacted into law.
(b) Reinstatement of Provisions Partially Repealed-
Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking subparagraph (B)
and inserting the following:
`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k),
(r), (v), or (w) of section 922;'; and
(2) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking clause (i)
and inserting the following:
`(i) is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled
shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, the person
shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not
less than 10 years; or'.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United
States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is
amended to read as follows:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means
any of the following:
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates
thereof:
`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM
90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
`(ii) AR-10;
`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or
Olympic Arms PCR;
`(iv) AR70;
`(v) Calico Liberty;
`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
`(xi) M1 Carbine;
`(xii) Saiga;
`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
`(xv) SLG 95;
`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
`(xvii) Steyr AUG;
`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
`(xix) Tavor;
`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927
Commando; or
`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or
Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates
thereof:
`(i) Calico M-110;
`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
`(v) Uzi.
`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates
thereof:
`(i) Armscor 30 BG;
`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
`(iii) Striker 12; or
`(iv) Streetsweeper.
`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to
accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a
semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached
tubular device designed to accept, and capable of
operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to
accept a detachable magazine, and has--
`(i) a second pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a barrel shroud; or
`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at
a location outside of the pistol grip.
`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that
has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or
based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a
firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through
(I) or (L).
`(K) A conversion kit.
`(L) 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.'.
(b) Related Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title
is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a
shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud
protects the user of the firearm from heat generated
by the barrel, but does not include a slide that
encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension
of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does
not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.
`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means
any part or combination of parts designed and intended
for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic
assault weapon, and any combination of parts from
which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled
if the parts are in the possession or under the
control of a person.
`(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable
magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can
readily be inserted into a firearm.
`(39) Fixed Magazine- The term `fixed magazine' means
an ammunition feeding device contained in, or
permanently attached to, a firearm.
`(40) Folding or Telescoping Stock- The term `folding
or telescoping stock' means a stock that folds,
telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the
length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise
enhances the concealability, of a firearm.
`(41) Forward Grip- The term `forward grip' means a
grip located forward of the trigger that functions as
a pistol grip.
`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a
grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic
that can function as a grip.
`(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel'
means a feature or characteristic that is designed in
such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm
as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms
Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'.
SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.
Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as
added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and
(2) by adding after and below the end the following:
`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the
possession or transfer of which would (but for this
subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this
subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed
on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.
SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.
Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as
added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by
striking `(3)' and all that follows through the 1st
sentence and inserting the following:
`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm
that--
`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or
slide action;
`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
`(C) is an antique firearm.'.
SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER
OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as
added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a
semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1)
does not apply, except through--
`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection
(t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall
be considered to be transferred from the business
inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall
be considered to be the transferor; or
`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the
transfer is made in accordance with the procedures
provided for in subsection (t) of this section and
section 923(g).
`(6) The Attorney General shall establish and
maintain, in a timely manner, a record of the make,
model, and date of manufacture of any semiautomatic
assault weapon which the Attorney General is made
aware has been used in relation to a crime under
Federal or State law, and the nature and circumstances
of the crime involved, including the outcome of
relevant criminal investigations and proceedings. The
Attorney General shall annually submit the record to
the Congress and make the record available to the
general public.'.
SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR
TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
DEVICE.
(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon
With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the
following:
`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer
any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition
feeding device.'.
(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following:
`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall
be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10
years, or both.'.
(b) Certification Requirement-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added
by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating
subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the
following:
`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer,
licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a
large capacity ammunition feeding device that was
manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of
this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney
General before the end of the 60-day period that
begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General,
that the device was manufactured on or before the date
of the enactment of this subsection.'.
(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as
amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4)
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 5 years, or both.'.
SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL WEAPONS TRANSFERS TO JUVENILES.
Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.
SEC. 9. BAN ON IMPORTATION OF LARGE CAPACITY
AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.
(a) In General- Section 922(w) of title 18, United
States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, 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)'; and
(3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:
`(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or
bring into the United States a large capacity
ammunition feeding device.'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 921(a)(31)(A) of
such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is
amended by striking `manufactured after the date of
enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994'.
Genghis_Don
02-21-2007, 11:16
Buy em now boys, when this hits the news, whether it will pass or not, which I doubt, prices will go up! :mad:
No Problem - all the new Democrats ran as God & Gun Conservatives. Surely they will vote the way they ran.:rolleyes:
Pete
I fing it hard to drip as much sarcasm is needed into this post.
Peregrino
02-21-2007, 14:42
NTM - Looks like this one is even more draconian than the last one. I hope the major gun lobbies hold the line. There isn't any compromise possible given the total failure of the last one to do anything positive. Peregrino
FWIW, our Govenor is a democrat who is supposedly "Pro-Gun". We will see.
Part of the scary aspect of all of this, is that some R's are as anti-gun as D's. The current administration has not pushed a pro gun issue. BATF has still been doing its administrative "thing" limiting gun availability.
IMHO, many politicans see the mob running, they run faster to get in front so they can say, "I am the leader".
Seems to me the AWB just punishes law abiding citizens who buy these weapons for sport, defense, and just because they can.
"Because it is there."
George Mallory (1886-1924), answer to the question 'Why do you want to climb Mt. Everest ?'.
http://www.mnteverest.net/quote.html
Defender968
02-22-2007, 07:50
Seems to me the AWB just punishes law abiding citizens who buy these weapons for sport, defense, and just because they can.
"Because it is there."
George Mallory (1886-1924), answer to the question 'Why do you want to climb Mt. Everest ?'.
http://www.mnteverest.net/quote.html
Completely agree, the law abiding citizens are not the issue which is all this new law will address, the issue is the criminals who don't obey the laws anyway, they don't care about waiting periods, or background checks, or import laws, they own assault weapons to use in conjunction with their criminal behavior, make said weapon "illegal" which is not what these silly bills actually do anyway, and they simply continue to own/buy their weapons illegally. What we don't need are more laws, what congress needs to do is worry about enforcing the laws we already have, but I guess they're two busy wasting our tax dollars voting on how to shred the constitution and usurp the president's powers as the CIC.
Sionnach
02-22-2007, 08:48
I'm thinking we should try that secession thing again, and this time, I'll bet we'd get a fair amount of "Yankees" to join us :)
jasonglh
02-22-2007, 09:08
I'm glad they are jumping on it quickly and not waiting until after the 08 election to try to get it in. Here's to a short term for the new Demorat majority and my excuse to buy another AR-15 as a spare.
izabanchi
02-25-2007, 07:13
More bad news out of New York, is there any other kind? This is a textbook case of Rectal Cranial Inversion. Instead of the South seceding we need to throw out New York City and all the Liberals in it. This gives me incentive to buy the M1A1 that I've been putting off. History is there to learn from and sadly the last time they offered up this bill I was confident we would be able to defeat it and ended up with egg on my face. Never underestimate the gullibility of the average citizen because they will always befuddle you in the end. This may be just the thing needed to put the dying touch on the Democrats hopes of winning all three in 08. Anyone professing surprise that this bill has been offered up needed a swift kick to wake up and extract their head from their fourth point of contact. Time to start the letter writing campaign and Join the NRA if you aren't already a member. The Gun Grabbers won’t be satisfied until we are all defenseless. Unlike the rest of the Sheeple I live far enough out of town that I know the Sheepdog isn’t going to protect me from the big bad wolf. I keep my own defenses and I’m not prepared to give them up to an idiot from New York, so if you know of any good supporters of the Second Amendment who need Campaign money for 08 pass along the names. In the mean time we need a strong Pro Second Amendment candidate for POTUS as the current crowd is pretty weak on this subject. We will have to count on the current office holder to exercise his Veto power over this one because it will probably get enough votes to pass the first time but won't make it if it goes back to try and override a Veto.
The Reaper
02-25-2007, 09:18
...if you know of any good supporters of the Second Amendment who need Campaign money for 08 pass along the names.
Therein lies the problem.
None of the announced candidates on either side seem to understand the Second Amendment or seem willing to support it.
I am afraid that the Repubs have absorbed so much of the leftist sentiment of the Dims that they are afraid to nominate a candidate who will do the right thing for America and the Second Amendment.
That may very well open the door for Dims to capture the Presidency in 2008 as gun owners and other social conservatives stay home in droves, rather than to go to the polls and have to vote for a Repub candidate who would seek to betray and disarm us.
TR
82ndtrooper
02-25-2007, 16:02
"Well here it comes"...............I hope this no surprise to you, if so, then you've been walking around blind without a cane !
This bill, HR1022, has seen many forms and language over the past two years, albiet, secretly and with more fuvor than this current bill. Anyone that follows the infringements of the 2nd Amendment had raised the distress flag in 2004 when Iraq was quickly seen as a quigmire, and the democrats starting "Jocking up" for the 2006 elections. The writing was on the wall, and many I suppose looked down when they should have been looking up.
Find a staunch pro 2nd Amendment candidate, and I'll show you a sure fire loser in 2008. George Bush won by 4,000,000 votes in the popular vote. Is it any coincidence that the NRA has roughly 4,000,000 members ? Perhaps, but my guess is most of the NRA types fall into the "Jim Zumbo" camp and HR1022 is not a threat to them, at least as they see it. After all, Zumbo doesn't own an AR15, AK, SKS, etc. Only till this last two weeks is he suddendly going to accept Ted Nugents request to join him on a hunting trip with an "Assault Rifle" Go for it Jim, you career is over anyway.
What is the purpose of an AWB ? First, the term "Assualt Weapon" was coined by the Clintonian "Crime Bill" with the help of Mrs. Brady. Now, even the most staunch 2nd Amendment supporters use the term for any rifle other than gran dads .30 caliber bolt gun. We've begun to eat our own feet, and enjoy the pain. :rolleyes:
Are there any justifiable numbers to support a true "cause and effect" relationship by instituting an AWB ? NO ! Since the 1994 AWB, crime has remained steady, if not increased, and the availbility of firearms in the black market have remained strong PERIOD. USDOJ and FBI reports from 1994-2004 showed that there are 8,000,000 firearms being transferred through FFl's each year, since 2002. If you believe like liberal gun grabbers, then there should blood in the streets and an epidemic of violent crimes with a firearm. In fact, there has been a decrease, not a "cause and effect relationship between "More guns equal more crime" Hollywood is trying desperatley to feed the masses with propoganda to the contrary. The move " American Gun" does just this, yet it's still and will remain in the "independent" category. And of last night, did nor recieve any rewards at the Spirt Awards ceremoney. Perphaps bigger hollywood knows to stay away from it.
It is my belief, as it is many, that any AWB is merely "Feel Good" legislation that gives any administration a punching ticket for addition to their resume. After all, Clinton signed the AWB in 94, and in 96 two men with fully automatic Ak-47's and drum mags stormed the Bank of America in Los Angeles and wreaked havoc on our "Oh so ever loved" land of the "Sun and Gold and George Clooney" Guess those two guy's didn't get the memo that full auto AK-47's and large capacity drum mags were a no-no. :rolleyes: What is another AWB going to accomplish ? Heck, if I decide to lose my mind and take out some people shopping in a mall, then I guess I have to restort to a "tactical reload" once my 10 round mags are spent. Makes no mind to me, 10, 15, what's the difference ? :rolleyes: My Remington 700 .308 sports a high powerd Leopold. It's a "Sniper rifle" even though I've never been trained by a sniper, with snipers, or around snipers. That's another term the Clintonian thinkers came up with to label any rifle with a scope and synthetic furniture. If it looks like military hardware, it must be. I suppose a musket should be banned also, it's military hardware, at least for George Washington. Clintonians also believe that oral sex is not really sex. After all, Bill Clinton said so. Now teenage girls and boys have "blow job parties" It's referred to as "Safe Sex Alternatives" but remember, it's not sex !
USA vs Miller was the exact time that the 2nd Amendment was seen as "Negotiable" Miller was shotty legal work, bad legialtive precedent, and the beginning of the fall for the 2nd Amendment. To democrats Miller is the precedent by which all conversations and debates start. Of course RoevWade was the precedent to "justifiable" murder, under the guise of "Personal choice" protected by the constitution.
If anyone is willing to nogotiate the Bill of Rights and CONUS, you do not deserve the right to stand and call yourself a Patriot. France must look awfully good, but few actually pack up and take up their life to that unthankful POS country. Have we ever really gotten a pat on the back for enabling them to continue speaking in French ?
The Reaper
02-25-2007, 18:26
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin.
Trust me, today, all they wanted to ban yesterday was machine guns, sawed off shotguns and rifles, and suppressors.
Today they want to ban assault rifles. Tomorrow sniper rifles, then any long gun with a mag over five rounds.
The day after that, small easily concealed pistols, then large, "high powered" pistols, after that, magazine fed pistols.
They will come for his (and the others') hunting guns soon enough. Look at England.
TR
"Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte."
- Pastor Martin Niemöller
Translated:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
Let me step up on this soapbox and let some things roll out here that I have been thinking about. Please hang with me here, as many of you know I am not the greatest written communicator, additionally it is mid-terms and my brain is fried from papers and studding.
HR1022 is their bill
What is our bill???
Now stop, before we all get on this soapbox, for me and I am sure for many of you, “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” says it all…
BUT… I work in EMS and that in addition to being educated and living in the world we do today I have been exposed to many of the world’s crazes… I can understand and see a need for some gun control, just not BS legislation that is imposable to enforce, doesn’t prevent anything, and makes it imposable for right minded (maybe a pun, maybe not) upstanding citizens to exercise their constructional rights…
SO…
Why don’t we write our own comprehensive gun control bill and let it start from the grass roots up, get organizations behind it, and try and use the process for us this time???
Here is a bulletin list of what is on my mind, but this is just the start… IMO…
-- First it must clean all other gun control laws off the books, ALL OF THEM
-- Second it must be federal, and state that no state can modify or infringe on this law. I don’t know how this would work, but the 14th amendment is suppose to do this for the constitution, sometimes it works (as in the first amendment), other times it doesn’t (as in the second amendment)…
-- Third there would need to be mandatory sentences for offenders, this way everyone in LE has but one law to worry about and one law to enforce. In the end it wouldn’t matter where you got the gun, but rather do you have a license to have that gun…
-- Forth this law would have to set up a licenser system and education system that would provide access to nearly all arms.
-- Fifth it would destroy any and all records of who owns arms and who doesn’t…
A bit more on the license before I let everyone chime in…
-- Just like a drivers license, different classes give you different privileges and require different educations and requirements…
-- There would have to be a reasonable minimal fee like there is for CCW in most states, caped so some jack!@# anti-gun sheriff somewhere doesn’t charge $5000 for a shotgun license…
-- The license would NOT allow tracking or record keeping of what you own. This license isn’t about how many you have, how many you bought at once, or what they are… It is about “Have you been cleared to own them”
Examples (just a few)
-- Class A At age 16, with completion of safety class and hunters education class, and a federal background check an individual can have in their possession any hunting arm*. License valid for 5 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal. The class could be mandatory in high school just like lib and law is in the state of Missouri, parents could prevent their kids from getting a license by contacting the state just like they can prevent their kids from getting a drivers license until 18yoa… Also note that with a class A you can’t buy, just possess…
-- Class B At age 18, with completion of a safety class and a federal background check an individual can buy, own, and have in their possession any non restricted small arm**. License valid for 5 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal.
-- Class C At age 21, with completion of a safety class, a legal use of force class, possession of a class B license, and a federal background check, an individual may carry concealed any non restricted small arm**. License valid for 5 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal.
-- Class D At age 21, with completion of a safety class and a federal background check an individual can buy, own, and have in their possession any restricted small arm***. License valid for 5 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal.
-- Class E At age 21, with completion of a safety class and a federal background check an individual can buy, own, and have in their possession destructive device****. License valid for 2 years, renewable for life with completion of federal background check at renewal.
* Hunting arm to include low capacity shotguns and rifles
** Non-restricted small arm to include any arm not capable of select or full auto fire or with a barrel length longer than 16”
*** Restricted small arms to include arm capable of select or full auto fire or with a barrel length of less than 16”
**** Destructive devices to include explosives and or reactive ammunitions…
OK so I know nothing about “destructive devices” as I have called them, and I am not a legislator, lawyer, or even a good writer.
This moment on the soapbox is only intended to “set the tone” and see what you all think, so let me know.
Stepping down,
NEXT…
JPH
Peregrino
02-28-2007, 21:40
License (1) formal or legal permission to do something specified (2) a document etc, indicating such permission. License denotes priviledge. Why do you want to convert a right guaranteed in the constitution into a priviledge subject to the whims of government? Your use of the driver's license to illustrate your point is "interesting". Driving is not a right - it's a priviledge and subject to revocation for just about any reason the government or its agents choose. In case you missed it, informed legal opinion (on both sides - much to the liberals chagrin) is that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. Your scheme is just another tool for activist judges and liberal legislators to further restrict already threatened rights. FWIW - You might want to study some 1950's era Civics textbooks (to the best of my knowlege there are no modern equivalents - certainly nothing untainted by the current liberal bias in education). They would go far towards rectifying an apparently incomplete understanding of the Constitution and the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers. Peregrino
spectre919
02-28-2007, 22:02
JPH,
I'd even go as far as to say you may also want to dive into the Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, and maybe even some Antebellum history.
The whole reason for the Constitution was to limit the Federal governments' involvement in our day-to-day lives. The Bill of Rights were written to guarantee certain rights, ultimately that would prevent the Federal government from becoming tyranical.
IMO - The 2nd Amendment should not be touched or interpreted, nor should laws be enacted that surpress or trample it's intended purpose.......to rebel against the Government should it become oppressive and tyranical.
For the record....I am not advocating rebellion....us good ole Southerners learned the first time round. ;) So you know: it's 1-0 at half on that one.
Peregrino and spectre,
I agree with everything you said 100%, you could also say I have lost hope in anyone with power in this country taking us back to our roots so to speak when it comes to our RIGHTS!!!
Your use of the driver's license to illustrate your point is "interesting". Driving is not a right - it's a priviledge and subject to revocation for just about any reason the government or its agents choose.
I knew this when I wrote what is said, and your again 100% right that driving is a privilege and the 2nd amendment is the RIGHT to bear arms.
My goal with such a bill as the one I described above would be to get us as close to our roots as I could in this modern world.
Maybe a slightly better question is how do we sell this in today’s political environment?
My thought was, although it has many weaknesses, a few of which were just pointed out, is how can we package a licensing system so that we can look at all the anti-gun-lost-libs… and say “see look I have the license you approved, I have a background check, I have had a safety class…Now shut-up, fall in, or get out of my way” yet make that license easy to get for ALL law abiding and mentally stable citizens AND make is very very hard for the government to take away…
Again, in case I have not made myself clear, I personally think the U.S. Constitution said it all, and I am NOT for big government getting in to every corner of my life. But I have lost hope that we, as a nation, will ever drift back to that document the trend to “get away from that old document that just can’t keep up with the times anymore,” as I once heard a professor say to a group of very young very impressionable college freshmen, is just so strong… it is really very sad.
So… what could we do, as Americans, as citizens not subjects…yet…
Find a staunch pro 2nd Amendment candidate, and I'll show you a sure fire loser in 2008. George Bush won by 4,000,000 votes in the popular vote. Is it any coincidence that the NRA has roughly 4,000,000 members ? Perhaps, but my guess is most of the NRA types fall into the "Jim Zumbo" camp and HR1022 is not a threat to them, at least as they see it. After all, Zumbo doesn't own an AR15, AK, SKS, etc. Only till this last two weeks is he suddendly going to accept Ted Nugents request to join him on a hunting trip with an "Assault Rifle" Go for it Jim, you career is over anyway.
JPH
:munchin
longrange1947
03-01-2007, 08:09
JPH wrote BUT… I work in EMS and that in addition to being educated and living in the world we do today I have been exposed to many of the world’s crazes… I can understand and see a need for some gun control,
I have been exposed to even more of the worlds crazies and dictators and the common denominator is the desire and need for gun control so they can work unimpeded.
And exactly what gun control law has ever slowed down crime? It has been shown over and over that only the law abiding follow those laws, and many of the law abiding do not. Look at the number of illegally owned pistols in NYC that are owned by law abiding citizens only wanting to protect themselves and their homes.
No law outlawing or restricting guns will work any better than the laws outlawing drugs. The only thing a law does is show an anti gunner that, that one didn't work so the next must be stricter and more draconian. Do not fall into that trap. It is hte proverbial "nose of the camel" that they love to wedge in for the next incremental "common sense law".
A quick example, you can not own a full auto weapon without a "special license", but any gang banger can have one to use against you. The old adage, whay own an assualt rifle because....... is as valid as why own a car that can go faster than the speed limit. And those dam things, along with doctors, kill more than any gun, let alone an assualt rifle.
Off the soap box.
How about we add licensing restrictions to the 1st Ammendment, too? To use your paradigm:
- Class A: At age 16, after 10 years of classes on the English language, and at least one mandatory oration class, you are allowed to talk to your friends in groups no larger than 5, and cannot discuss politics (as you're no old enough to vote anyhow) or anything that would be considered Rated R in a movie (again, you're not yet 18).
- Class B: At age 18, with completion of an additional debate class and a federal background check you can now speak in groups of up to 8 and discuss politics (local only; no federal issues may be introduced to the discussion), the ramifications vs. pleasure of tobacco use, your experiences in filling out your Selective Service card, and driving/automotive topics (experience discussions limited to those conducted at or under the legal speed limit)
- Class C: At age 21, with proof of at least one semester of study in philosophy and/or logic, you may address groups of up to 15 people (any number over that could potentially create a large scale mob, which is dangerous to the general population) on topics that include the federal government (topics restricted to issues that directly affect you or the local area), the use of alcohol, and regional concerns. At no time may topics that may be considered offensive or disrupting to anyone in the group, or to anyone that may potentially overhear the group's discussion, be verbalized for fear of collateral damage. If discussions become heated, all parties must immediately disperse for a 3-day "cooling off" period, and all group members must attend a one day anger management counseling session to ensure future discussions do not escalate into violence.
Seems rather bizarre that folks are more than willing to restrict individual rights guaranteed by the 2d Ammendment, but would lose their minds if someone proposed the above restrictions on rights provided by the 1st Ammendment, doesn't it?
Some very good points being made here and I can’t argue with any of them, nor do I want to.
So how can we get back to the point where the 2nd amendment, and the whole constitution for that matter, really means something?
Seems rather bizarre that folks are more than willing to restrict individual rights guaranteed by the 2d Ammendment, but would lose their minds if someone proposed the above restrictions on rights provided by the 1st Ammendment, doesn't it?
Sadly true, so what do we do?
The further this dialogue goes the more I think something really could be done, I feel we have a very well educated group here, and as stated above:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
EDIT: Do we need a 28th amendment? If so, what would it say, if not, then why??? AND how do we restore meaning to the second amendment AND prevent future infringements?
JPH
x SF med
03-01-2007, 15:20
...Seems rather bizarre that folks are more than willing to restrict individual rights guaranteed by the 2d Ammendment, but would lose their minds if someone proposed the above restrictions on rights provided by the 1st Ammendment, doesn't it?
Sheeple want to baaaa, sheeple do not want to face the wolf. That is why there are sheepdogs. Sheeple do not realize they are voting the wolf into office, because he can baaaa like the sheeple. Sheeple do not realize the wolves they elect to protect them will muzzle and cage the sheepdogs until it is too late.
More on my 28th amendment statement…
I would think any such amendment would recognize the governments infringement of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. It would then right those wrongs, and once more state that no law federal or local can be made to withhold these rights from anyone.
Again just my opinion at this time, I am open to any and all ideas
JPH
spectre919
03-01-2007, 17:41
Again just my opinion at this time, I am open to any and all ideas
JPH
IMO - We cannot continue to enact laws that forces acknowledgement of another law. There shouldn't have to be a law to essentially tell the Fed's not to violate the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is what it is....leave it alone and respect it.
Laws only serve people who obey them.....and those who get caught. Better and stronger enforcement of the current laws would serve everyone better.
I don’t want to be the only one posting and replying to this thread. However I don’t what to see this thread die either. This issue, our second amendment rights, is a deciding issue for my vote and it appears to be the same for many of the members of this board.
Even if it is not a deciding issue, it seems to be high on everyone’s list.
I just read the Gigliani 2008 thread, and I see a lot of people expressing the same thoughts and views as I have, only more elegantly written.
As I have alluded to this before but I will say it once more, I have lost hope that either party, or anyone currently running for POTUS will protect our rights.
So the question still stands… “How do we protect our rights, and make them THE ISSUE in ’08 and beyond?
I have thrown out a few under educated opinions, those of which have been shot full of holes, and rightfully so… (That comment is an admission “bad ideas” and not meant to be disrespectful of those participating in this debate/discussion.:D )
Looking at my generation, it is my belief that those who feel our constitutional rights are important, is a dieing breed. My generation wants things handed to them, and could care less about things they think don’t concern them!!!:mad:
Before those who are willing to stand up for our rights are dead… what can we do, do we still have the numbers to do it, to re-instate (sp?) our rights and protect them for the next 100 + years?
If so how?
JPH
The Reaper
03-02-2007, 18:10
Good article out today.
Sportsmen read and heed.
They want your guns too.
Much of this will probably get bargained away and after some version abridging more of our rights is passed, both sides will claim victory.
TR
The Patriot Post
Patriot Vol. 07 No. 09 Digest | 02 March 2007
THE FOUNDATION
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic...” —Justice Joseph Story
PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
A Valentine’s Day Massacre (of the Constitution)
In some ways I’m surprised it took them this long. On Valentine’s Day, 14 February, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) began a campaign to grab just about everything but Cupid’s arrows with the introduction of her bill, HR 1022, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.” This is the same Carolyn McCarthy who introduced HR 297 on the first day of the new Congress, attempting the most massive expansion of the Brady Law since its 1993 passage. McCarthy’s murky definition of “assault weapons” notwithstanding, the legislation’s intent is to re-enact the 1994 Clinton gun grab, while adding a few million more firearms to the haul.
All this leads me to wonder whether the anti-gun crowd simply skips over that pesky constitutional amendment stuck right there between the First and the Third.
Under the Clinton Gun Ban, which expired in 2004 under the Republican-controlled Congress, 19 so-called “assault weapons” —in reality semi-automatic hunting and sporting rifles—were banned for having characteristics that liberals found scary: certain stocks, grips, magazines and so forth. Under that 1994 law, manufacturers could still sell these weapons if they made them look less scary to liberals; HR 1022, however, would ban them entirely.
In addition to eliminating completely the weapons covered under the Clinton law, McCarthy’s bill adds more than a few firearms to the list, including the following:
All semi-automatic shotguns; all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles; the most popular competition sporting rifles—including the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and even today’s version of the American infantryman’s rifle of World War II, the M1 Garand; any shotgun or semi-automatic rifle having “any characteristic that can function as a grip”; any automatic fixed-magazine pistol exceeding a ten-round capacity; and any parts needed to repair or refurbish guns in circulation that are covered under the ban.
In addition, the legislation would give the Attorney General the prerogative to add any other shotgun or rifle to the list that the government ever deems not to be a “sporting” weapon. Not content with simply banning these weapons, HR 1022 also takes steps toward national firearm registration by mandating new rules for weapons and parts sales. Finally, as if all this weren’t enough, McCarthy’s bill would be a permanent ban, unlike the Clinton Ban, which expired after a ten-year trial period.
Legislation of this sort is becoming an obsession with Democrats. When the Clinton Ban was set to expire on 13 September 2004, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to extend and expand it. At the time, President Bush took the calculated move to commit to signing the bill if it made it through Congress—since he knew it wouldn’t. Now, with Democrats in control of both Houses, anxiously aided by anti-gun Republicans aplenty, what will the President do if HR 1022 makes it to his desk? The Patriot said at the time (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=270) that the Bush administration’s 2004 strategy was arrogance and folly—and now that folly may be coming home to roost.
Perhaps this administration should focus more on the long-term effects of its action on the Constitution and less on the short-term gains to be had from “playing to the crowd.” It is the Constitution, after all—and not men—that defines the rule of law.
The Constitution’s Second Amendment (http://PatriotPost.US/histdocs/constitution/bill_of_rights.asp) prohibition against government interference in the “right to keep and bear arms” is the singular right that ensures all others. As noted by Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Indeed, Madison himself wrote in Federalist No. 46 (http://PatriotPost.US/fedpapers/fed_46.html), “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any.” This is no less true today than it was in 1787.
When Feinstein-Schumer was coming around the bend in 2004, much hay was made of the Bureau of Justice Statistics data that firearms-related crime had declined 54 percent in the last decade (that is, the period covered by the Clinton Gun Ban). The number of violent crimes reported in 2002 was 980,000 fewer than in 2000, but a National Institute of Justice report (headed by Christopher Koper at the University of Pennsylvania) concluded, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”
Feinstein’s own California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady noted in an internal memo, “Information on [these guns] would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the [Feinstein-Schumer] legislation would be based,” and even the Washington Post admitted that the banned guns “play[ed] a part in only a small percentage of crime.”
Like HR 1022 today, Feinstein-Schumer claimed to be aimed at the protection of law-abiding citizens from the “gun problem (http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=300).” Of course, only law-abiding citizens comply with such restrictions—and at their own peril. Criminals don’t care whether the weapon they’re using comports with the 23,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions already on the books, but they do care whether their intended victim has a firearm. Indeed, extensive interviews with violent felons make it clear that they’d much rather prey on those who are least likely to possess a gun for self-defense.
In Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Again, no less true today than it has been throughout history.
Clearly, our Founding Fathers had it right. “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” warned George Mason. “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty,” implored Patrick Henry. “Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
While we're on the topic, a very good book to read on Gun Control is From my cold dead fingers: Why America Needs Guns by former sheriff Richard Mack.
I used this book to help establish and support the thesis for my term paper in social psychology disputing the so called "weapons effect" which is the basis for the modern liberal anti-gun platform.
This book is essentialy a comprehensive colledtion of data and statistics that self-evidently refute the argument for gun control. Regardless of which side of the issue you are on it will help in making an informed descision on gun control.
OkieSoldier
04-05-2007, 18:07
...What we don't need are more laws, what congress needs to do is worry about enforcing the laws we already have...
FYI, it's the legislative (congress) branch's job to write law and the executive branch's job to enforce those laws. While I understand your point, and fully agree that we don't need more laws, it is not the job of congress to do so. For those interested, there is a very interesting show on Showtime (R) called "Penn & Teller's Bull$#!t!" I believe in season 3 have an episode about the Brady bill and gun control. It addresses and supports many of the opinions contained in this thread. Their website is located at http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/home.do
CATAtonic426
07-29-2007, 15:25
Slight necropost, sorry, but I found this if y'all haven't seen it yet.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348
Fiercely Loyal
07-29-2007, 17:19
Thanks you for reviving this thread. I was unaware they were trying to reup HR1022. As I was reading the thread I was looking for options to start lobbying against it. Thanks for the link CATatonic, it is a start.
FL