Posted on 02/24/2007 6:37:47 AM PST by pabianice
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.
Check out the Brady Campaign's myspace.com blog. They rail against .22 rifles and shotguns like they're the most dangerous things next to bazookas. Nothing is safe with them.
If this damnable nightmare did pass, would law-abiding citizens be required to turn in the AR's they already own???
I have a Rock-River 5.56 that I NEVER want to give up or bury. I also don't want a criminal record.
Does anyone have a good resource for the best deals on 5.56 rounds?? I have a good stock, but it seems I may need more.
I remember looking up McCain's ACU rating when I first came online, back in 1999 or 2000.
During the 80's and early 90's his ACU rating had been about 90, but it really dropped from 1988 onward, as he began to "position" himself for the 2000 race. His ACU rating for the period just before 2000 was down around 75 or so. Still conservative, but nowhere near as conservative as his junior colleague, John Kyl.
Orrin Hatch of Utah, who also wanted to run, showed the same kind of sudden drift downward in his ACU ratings about the same time.
Not when they package it into the next "Anti-Terrorism" legislation, or the "Homeland Security Act of 2007", or some other nice sounding, must pass, bill.
I'd have thought that McCain-Fiengold was DOA, and if it somehow passed, would have been vetoed, and if signed, precipitously thrown out by the Supreme Court. I was wrong on all counts, and the First Amendment is a dead issue, except to protect porno and anti Christian or anti Jewish screeds.
This country belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
--Abraham Lincoln
A very ironic quote don't you think?
There are so many who are deserving. The list is endless!
While at the same time maintaining that none of the current thousands of gun laws, including the then in effect AWB, violated that right. Still, much better than Reno or Gonzales.
I agree. This thing is going nowhere, not even a watered down version at this time. We should remember their goals and intentions however. Seeing the liberals who are running for president from both parties combined with the democrat house and senate, I think our time to buy such weapons may be very limited. I would advise anyone who may want to own anything more than a bolt action rifle or pump shotgun to start talking to your local gun shop(s). Bulk ammo purchases are also possible online and elsewhere. The ammo will also be restricted or outright banned as soon, if not before the guns are taken care of.
Actually it was 1994. Then they had to include the sunset provision. After the Republicans took over, the law was *not* repealed, although the House did pass a repeal bill. This time there will be no need for a sunset clause. If it passes, it will be a pretty much permanent part of the law, regardless of which statist party is in power.
"They also tend to be the very hardest to the right on the conservative spectrum. In fact, anyone not exactly in line with their rigid way of thinking, are "RINOS"."
It's called morals and or a defined set of values...something moderates can't seemed to grasp. Moderates tilt with the wind, having no set of values except what is in vougue at the time.
I have some shread of respect for the far left, because they are at least working from core beliefs...as nutty as they are.
Again, IMO.
Not as the bill is currently written. Although it would require going through a FFL, with the required background check, to transfer an otherwise "grandfathered" rifle, pistol or shotgun. That's a way, as the NRA says, to get back door registration. (Never mind that they, under the same executive V they have now supported the twice damned "instant background check" as a "compromise" in lieu of a waiting period.)
Also, it's important to know that in this Congress, NO LAW WILL PASS WITHOUT REPUBLICAN VOTES! So - we have to hold everybody's feet to the fire on this. All of our representatives need to be politely told that we do not need this, and why. Wouldn't hurt to communicate same to the leadership of the opposition, and to forcefully demand the death of this from the Republican leadership and every other Republican.
All of these things need to be done to preserve our rights and ensure the Constitution remains in effect in the future.
The handwriting is on the wall.
It is ineveitable.
Ironic in what respect?
While you may be right that, when hit directly in the face with an indisputable attack against our nation, the American Sheeple will coalesce and rekindle the American Spirit that has defended us through dark periods in the past, I have serious doubts. Being as 9-11 did nothing but turn the nation into temporary, plastic patriots, I kind of doubt that we would react any differently when our enemies come to really deal us a harsh blow. We'll utter a few patriotic sounding words, thump our chests, then go back to our stock portfolios, golf handicaps, American Idol and WWE. If we're still alive to do so, that is.
No, I think in any case, be it another (larger) 9-11 style attack, or Congressional incursions against our RKBA, most Americans would simply bow down like good slaves, and take the path of least resistance. Thumper is right...most of the American Sheeple are worthless, and I'm ashamed to call them my countrymen. We, as a society, don't deserve he service provided us by our brave men and women in the military. But that's nothing new.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.