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.
#140
I've already sent letters to two Senators here in Colorado and several Reps in my area. Specifically mine, but also to those who are already opposed to such things.
They ALL have MY support against this worm-an...
Now, THAT is true.
You bet your ass they will. If I had that pic of Elian Gonzales being taken by the Feds, I'd post it here.
I am sure that you are correct and when push comes to shove, a guy will do what he must.
BTW....I have been through Paradise Valley, Montana many,many times. You are very fortunate to be living there.
How galactically stupid do you think the Federals are?
"The Republicans were in office 12 years and mostly rewarded themselves. Anybody remember any gun rights laws offered in that that time? Nope."
I remember quite a number.
The bill to require all states to recognize all concealed carry permits.
The bill to enforce rights to self defense with firearms in the national parks.
The bill to restore the right to own handguns in DC.
There are quite a few more. Most got very little press. Blame the MSM.
Well, now that you put it that way, no they probably wouldn't!
I bet they'd love to have the ability to do that, though. I still think the Democrats' ultimate goal is to have us all completely disarmed.
The tree of libery needs to be watered.
Not so fast.
The fat lady ain't even doing practice scales yet.
It ain't over 'till it's over.
Like the foul and demonic socialistic vermin they truly are, the demoncrats will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal of political, civil and social control over the people.
Having once been a card carrying socialist, I know the human debris they truly are.
Our government agencies would not do such a thing.
Why forego shooting the dogs, stomping the kitties, shooting wives with babies in their arms and burning people to death 70 or so at a time?
What kind of government do you think we have, anyway?
If you believe that the rats won't try to ban firearms like tha M1911A1 .45auto or the Colt SAA or the winchester,remington,browning shotguns on account of what a clause of a sub-paragraph in a gun ban bill states that is open to interpratation go right ahead .
I will default to the wost case scenario as it has proven over the decades to be the prudent thing to do.
You are correct sir!!! Both parties in Congress view the American citizen on a good day as a peasant & on a cloudy day as a serf who have the duty to french kiss their backsides & suck their d*cks.
Get yourself to your local community college to get an education in machine shop tech . with this knowledge you will be able to make your own firearms ie items along the line of a MK.III STEN Gun with integral suppressor.
The plans & machinist drawings are available on the web. There is no way the liars,theives,child pimps that are the Congress of the United States can register every piece of exhaust pipe, machine tool,steel bar stock,spring steel ,springs,or the people who have knowledge on how to use machine tools.
Here's the problem. Bush doesn't know where it is, and besides, Bush doesn't do vetoes.
Here's another problem: whoever thinks that Bush is a conservative and respects the Second Amendment, doesn't know the man. HE IS NOT ON OUR SIDE.
If this abomination of a bill passes and Dubya signs it'll be the GOP's death knell.
Hmmm... maybe that's the OTHER reason they've been trying to decimate the North American manufacturing industry... to cut down on the numbers of PO'd skilled workers.
My thoughts: They are directing this at the people who will follow the law, for much the same reason that farmers and ranchers build their fences to keep the livestock in, not as much to keep the predators out. Who is the primary source of revenue/income? Law-abiding, productive citizens. Who, then, will they be devoting their energies to maximizing their control over and getting the maximum return from? Again, the "good people" who will obey, no matter how restrictive it gets. And any farmer or livestock handler will tell you that the animals they depend on for their livelihood are a lot easier to manage when they've been dehorned.
Its deeper than that...
It is an inalienable right...One that cannot be allowed to be relegated to the idea that the Constitution is a "living" document...Those horse-buscuit ideas need to be squashed with extreme prejudice...
But we seem to have a serious lack of intestinal fortitude at all levels of our government...Never mind stupidity...
Like I say to everyone when this issue comes up...
It is:
What are you prepared to do and sacrifice in the defense of our inalienable rights...Once they get one tossed on the trashheap of liberal/socialist accomplishments...The rest are soon to follow...
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.