H.R. 1859

[rubberneck]

And so it begins. Rep. McCarthy has introduced a new bill that would re-instate the mag capacity provision of the 1994 AWB.

The cynic in me feels compelled to point out the fact that the bill was introduced on 4/16, the same day as the Va Tech shooting, and after a quick phone call I learned that the House closed for business at 2:00 pm on the 16th. That means at the time she introduced her bill they still trying to recover and treat the wounded and account for all the dead students in Blacksburg.

This is a disgusting attempt to use a very sad event to advance a political agenda. One would think she would have had the common decency to wait until all the facts were checked and all the victims families were notified before she climbed atop her soapbox.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1859.IH:

[Monsoon65]

Well, she sure didn't waste any time, did she??

[Ret10Echo]

Here is the current bill text...Currently McCarthy has no cosponsors. If you live in the State of New York, you should be on the phone or writing a letter. Starting off with " I'm a registered voter.." is nice.

All others watch for cosponsors to pop up. C-Span.org has a good link to track legislation. It can give you current status and ammendments in case it gets buried into some other bill.

110TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 1859
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity
ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 16, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer
of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to
strengthen that prohibition.
1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Anti-Large Capacity
5 Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007’’.
6 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVI
7 SIONS RELATING TO LARGE CAPACITY AM
8 MUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
9 (a) REINSTATEMENT OF PROVISIONS WHOLLY RE
10 PEALED.—Sections 921(a)(31) and 922(w), and the last

1 sentence of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code,
2 as in effect just before the repeal made by section
3 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforce
4 ment Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.
5 (b) REINSTATEMENT OF PROVISION PARTIALLY RE
6 PEALED.—Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States
7 Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and in
8 serting the following:
9 ‘‘(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f),
10 (k), (r), or (w) of section 922;’’.
11 SEC. 3. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR
12 TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNI
13 TION FEEDING DEVICE.
14 (a) BAN ON TRANSFER OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT
15 WEAPON WITH LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING
16 DEVICE.—
17 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18,
18 United States Code, is amended by inserting after
19 subsection (z) the following:
20 ‘‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer
21 a semiautomatic assault weapon with a large capacity am
22 munition feeding device.’’.
23 (2) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT
24 WEAPON.—Section 921(a)(30) and Appendix A of
25 section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as in ef-

1 fect just before the repeal made by section
2 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
3 Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into
4 law.
5 (3) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title is
6 amended by adding at the end the following:
7 ‘‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa)
8 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than
9 10 years, or both.’’.
10 (b) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—
11 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 922(w) of such title,
12 as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended—
13 (A) in paragraph (3)—
14 (i) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of sub
15 paragraph (B); and
16 (ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and
17 redesignating subparagraph (D) as sub
18 paragraph (C); and
19 (B) by striking paragraph (4) and insert
20 ing the following:
21 ‘‘(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer,
22 licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large
23 capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufac
24 tured on or before the date of the enactment of this sub
25 section, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before

1 the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date
2 of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed
3 by the Attorney General, that the device was manufac
4 tured on or before the date of the enactment of this sub
5 section.’’.
6 (2) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title,
7 as amended by subsection (a)(3) of this section, is
8 amended by adding at the end the following:
9 ‘‘(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4)
10 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than
11 5 years, or both.’’.

[blue02hd]

Is there more to the bill? I did not see where it defined "large capacity" or how it defined "assault weapon".

Is this left generic on purpose in order to allow negotiation during the bills review in the Senate?

Or is CNN going to conduct a "poll" and get back to them?

[Ret10Echo]

Is there more to the bill? I did not see where it defined "large capacity" or how it defined "assault weapon".

Is this left generic on purpose in order to allow negotiation during the bills review in the Senate?

Or is CNN going to conduct a "poll" and get back to them?

Standard vague standards....if you are in a position where you are regularly impacted directly by legislation you learn to really despise how things are purposefully written to allow a huge amount of interpretation. Keeps all the lawyers here in DC at work dilligently.

Cornell Law School is a pretty good resource. To read the referred to sections of Title 18 USC Chapter 44 follow this link.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_44.html

[rubberneck]

Is there more to the bill? I did not see where it defined "large capacity" or how it defined "assault weapon".

Is this left generic on purpose in order to allow negotiation during the bills review in the Senate?

Or is CNN going to conduct a "poll" and get back to them?

Look at lines 6-10 in the post directly ahead of yours. It appears as if this bill is looking to re-instate the hi-cap portion of the 1994 AWB and uses the definition of what constitutes high capacity and assault weapon from that bill.

[Ret10Echo]

Look at lines 6-10 in the post directly ahead of yours. It appears as if this bill is looking to re-instate the hi-cap portion of the 1994 AWB and uses the definition of what constitutes high capacity and assault weapon from that bill.

Currect, Title 18 USC Chapter 44

[The Reaper]

Dear Representative X:

Thank you Sir, for taking the time to hear us out
on an issue of great concern.

I am shocked at the opportunism that members of
Congress are taking advantage of in the wake of
the tragedy at Virginia Tech last week.

I see that Rep McCarthy wasted no time in trying
to blame the instrument for the actions of the
crazed killer and now we have HR 1859 staring us
in the face. I am sure that special interests will
put a similar bill up for vote in the Senate.

This type of draconian legislation is clearly a
violation of our rights as outlined in the Second
Amendment of the Bill of Rights to our
Constitution.

In fact, the weapons used were not assault
weapons, but were simple handguns as any
American might buy to protect themselves or to
shoot recreationally. "Assault weapons" are an
extremely low percentage of firearms involved in
crime, as the FBI's own statistics demonstrate. A
simple hunting shotgun could have done far more
damage than these pistols did. Should we ban
cars to stop drunk driving?

We have plenty of gun laws already. Why not
enforce the ones we have?

As Rep. McCarthy and her associates have
frequently stated, their eventual goal is the total
elimination of private firearms ownership in this
country, this is merely another step in that
program.

This sort of legislation should not even make it to
the floor for a vote, but if a similar bill does, I
hope that we can count on you to do the right
thing to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed
rights as free Americans and citizens of North Carolina.

As loyal constituents and fellow Americans, this is
extremely important to us and we appreciate your
assistance and consideration.

Very Respectfully-
TR

[Kyobanim]

Dear Representative X:

Thank you Sir, for taking the time to hear us out
on an issue of great concern.

I am shocked at the opportunism that members of
Congress are taking advantage of in the wake of
the tragedy at Virginia Tech last week.

I see that Rep McCarthy wasted no time in trying
to blame the instrument for the actions of the
crazed killer and now we have HR 1859 staring us
in the face. I am sure that special interests will
put a similar bill up for vote in the Senate.

This type of draconian legislation is clearly a
violation of our rights as outlined in the Second
Amendment of the Bill of Rights to our
Constitution.

In fact, the weapons used were not assault
weapons, but were simple handguns as any
American might buy to protect themselves or to
shoot recreationally. "Assault weapons" are an
extremely low percentage of firearms involved in
crime, as the FBI's own statistics demonstrate. A
simple hunting shotgun could have done far more
damage than these pistols did. Should we ban
cars to stop drunk driving?

We have plenty of gun laws already. Why not
enforce the ones we have?

As Rep. McCarthy and her associates have
frequently stated, their eventual goal is the total
elimination of private firearms ownership in this
country, this is merely another step in that
program.

This sort of legislation should not even make it to
the floor for a vote, but if a similar bill does, I
hope that we can count on you to do the right
thing to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed
rights as free Americans and citizens of North Carolina.

As loyal constituents and fellow Americans, this is
extremely important to us and we appreciate your
assistance and consideration.

Very Respectfully-
TR

Excellent! I'm going to borrow that if you don't mind.

[The Reaper]

Excellent! I'm going to borrow that if you don't mind.

Thanks.

That was why I put it up.

Go to your Representative's web site (all you need to know is your state and zip code, they will direct you):

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

The same thing will be introduced in the Senate, so you might as well hit them too.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

It takes thirty seconds or less if you have AutoFill on your toolbar and you use the Copy and Paste functions.

Just remember to put in their name, the correct gender (Sir or Ma'am), and a personal detail on you or your area, and it should get the job done.

Note that they rate emails and faxes pretty low on the response chain, phone calls are better, and a real snail mail letter is the best.

Most of the time, you will get a meaningless auto reply that applies to either side equally, unless the Rep has strong feelings about the issue, they don't want to commit, or to piss too many people off. Form letter will normally arrive in 7-30 days.

Good luck!

TR

[Rogue]

OUTSTANDING....... Borrowed and already used.

Thanks TR

[Sionnach]

UPDATE: If you are going to propose a bill, shouldn't you at least know what it is you are banning? Watch the video.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/18/video-carolyn-mccarthy-doesnt-understand-her-own-gun-control-legislation

Thanks, TR.

Messages sent using your letter as a template.

Although my Rep is a Liberal Democrat, I'm hoping I can count on my two GA Senators to fight the Senate version of this bill.

[Ret10Echo]

Chairman: Hon. John Conyers, Jr.
(D) Michigan, 14th

Ranking Member: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
(R) Texas, 21st


Democrat
Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th

Hon. Meehan
(D) Massachusetts, 5th

Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27

Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th

Vacant
,

Republican
Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan
(R) Ohio, 4th

[The Reaper]

Good, my Rep is on the committee.

Most of the Dems there hate guns and will have no problems voting for HR 1859 as it is.

What will be interesting is how the newly elected "conservative" or "moderate" Dems vote. I don't think they were sent there to pass new anti-Second Amendment legislation, and many campaigned on that issue as "pro-gun."

TR

[Monsoon65]

TR:

Thanks for the letter. I'm usually not good at writing up something like that.

I've contacted my reps about H.R. 1022 that she put out in Feb. So far, I still haven't heard back from any of them.

[Gypsy]

Thanks.

That was why I put it up.



My thanks for such a great letter, TR. I will copy/paste/print/mail post haste.

[Surgicalcric]

Here she is getting owned when being questioned about H.R. 1859...

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/18/video-carolyn-mccarthy-doesnt-understand-her-own-gun-control-legislation/

[Gypsy]

"It's the thing that goes up..."

"No, no it's not."

Brilliant.