Posted on 03/22/2007 2:28:20 PM PDT by neverdem
www.gunowners.org
Mar2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The Democrats are back in power and their anti-gun wing is trying to make up for lost time as far as gun control legislation is concerned. There are a number of bills that have been introduced already, but GOA will be there to meet every challenge.
Right now, we need your help in beating back a reintroduction of the so-called "assault weapons ban," the infamous bill that outlawed many types of firearms based primarily on cosmetics, misinformation and scare tactics.
The bill is HR 1022, and last month it was introduced by the Queen of Gun Control, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Its 30 cosponsors comprise a list of the usual anti-gun suspects -- so we need to make sure that no pro-gun congressmen are duped into signing their names onto this anti-gun piece of trash.
McCarthy entitled her bill the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, knowing these firearms aren't "assault weapons" and knowing the bill she is reintroducing does nothing to prevent violent crime -- since the guns in question have seldom been used in crime.
McCarthy's bill would reinstate all of the now defunct provisions related to semi-automatic firearms and large capacity magazines. The manufacture and/or importation of many firearms would be prohibited. This would be paired with a strong ban on the possession or transfer of detachable magazines having moderate or larger capacities.
Truth be told, HR 1022 is the old ban on steroids. Fourteen more guns are listed by name than in the '94 ban, and only one "dangerous" feature, such as a pistol grip, is needed to make a "nice" gun into a "bad" gun. The old ban required two "dangerous" features, such as a pistol grip and a folding stock. This distinction effectively expands the scope of the bill to ban a far broader variety of firearms.
Since the U.S. Department of Justice has already documented that the previous "assault weapons" ban did absolutely nothing to stop violent crime, it is clear that HR 1022 is simply a direct attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners.
More than 10 years ago, the anti-gun lobby and their friends in the media began waging a campaign to frighten people and convince them that the so-called "assault weapons" are rapid fire machine guns when, in reality, they are merely semi-automatic firearms that look different than traditional hunting rifles.
This bill is designed to cripple the firearms industry while infringing on the rights of all gun owners. It is proof positive that the rabid, anti-gun members of Congress really don't care about stopping crime or saving lives -- they just want to take our guns away.
What are the odds of this bill getting through the Congress? Who knows? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just gave Rep. Jefferson a seat on the Homeland Security Panel. Jefferson was the guy who had $90,000 dollars of bribe money stuffed into his freezer.
If the liberals now in control of the Democrat Party feel they are strong enough to get away with that kind of outrage, they may feel they can get away with passing a gun ban that does nothing but punish law-abiding gun owners.
We must take seriously every anti-gun bill introduced in this Congress. But, at the same time, this bill is an opportunity to beat up those members of Congress who hate guns and will stop at nothing to eliminate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
If we can give them a good thrashing on HR 1022, we may be able to discourage them from bringing forth more bills like this. And that is why we need your help in beating down HR 1022 quickly, and making sure that none of the good guys get suckered into supporting this.
ACTION: Please use the pre-written letter below to direct your comments to your Congressman. And circulate this alert to your pro-gun friends and family.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
Dear Representative:
I'm sure you are aware that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has reintroduced, in the form of HR 1022, the Clinton semi-auto gun ban that sunset a couple of years ago. The Justice Department reported that the ban's impact on gun violence was small at best, and too small to be statistically valid.
By contrast, states adopting concealed carry laws had significant decreases in violent crime while states and cities maintaining strict gun control laws continued to have the nation's highest rates of violent crime.
I agree with Gun Owners of America that the only people affected by the so-called "assault weapons ban" of 1994 were law-abiding gun owners, manufacturers and importers. Clearly, this bill is nothing less than an infringement on the rights of gun owners. And we won't stand for it.
The supporters of HR 1022 will be identified as anti-gun Congressmen and, hopefully, targeted for defeat at the next election. As your constituent, I urge you to oppose this or any other gun grabbing bill in the 110th Congress.
Sincerely,
The original AWB was nothing compared to this.
I wrote to my representative when this first appeared in the House Judiciary Committee, and I know hell will freeze over before he votes for an atrocity such as this.
bttt
Thanks to the Lautenberg Amendment, ALL military personnel must complete a form annually disclosing circumstances that may require restriction from the use of firearms, either personal or military.
http://www.riley.army.mil/view/article.asp?id=827-2002-08-09-41021-5
"The Lautenberg Amendment makes it a felony for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of “domestic violence” (e.g., assault or attempted assault on a family member) to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. There is no exception for military personnel engaged in official duties."
Do you think this bill stands a good chance at passing or is it up in the air at this point?
IMHO, I think it's iffy in the house, and a no go in the Senate, where they need 60 votes for cloture.
Thanks for the links.
In my opinion (for whatever that's worth), it depends COMPLETELY on the circumstances. If we get some izlamo-fascists gunning down women & children in a shopping mall somewhere, the American Stalin-loving Left (and the 'pliable' PC-compliant portion of the American Right) will respond, not by going after the the homicidal izlamo-serial killers, but by confiscating firearms from law-abiding Americans...
Heaven knows that we DON'T need any high profile shootings right now with the current storm clouds gathering over gun owners.
bump
You're 100% right - 365 days a year. Unfortunately, there are way too many so-called 'Liberals,' who are willing to climb up on top of ANY pile of American bodies, no matter HOW high, to pursue their political agenda - which, 24-hours a day, includes gun confiscation at or near the top of their list.
Just look at what B.J. Clinton did after Oklahoma City. It was absolutely shameful - and absolutely typical, for the American Left...
bangping
The bill is a long read, but needs to be read carefully.
Here's one paragraph I find particularly troubling:
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:
(And here's the kicker)
`(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.'.
(Emphasis added)
Note: I've broken the original paragraph into two, for easier reading.
While I'm at it, here's the list of Cosponsors
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 3/13/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/9/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/7/2007
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 3/13/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/13/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/9/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 3/7/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/7/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 3/7/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 3/13/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/7/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/15/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 3/15/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/7/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 3/13/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/13/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 3/7/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/13/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/7/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 3/7/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 3/15/2007
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 3/13/2007
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 3/15/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 3/7/2007
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 3/9/2007
"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."
There go all their pretenses for wanting to protect "sporting purpose" guns.
Then they'll start a war that the rest of us will finish.
It also helps to support the best 2nd amendment candidate in the presidential race, Duncan Hunter.
This is about banning guns, damn the facts.
That's odd...i don't recall any part of the second amendment that states our right to keep and bear arms is for sporting purposes.
These people are communists and traitors and know nothing of the constitution that they swore an oath to uphold. They should all be impeached and dismissed.
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.