Posted on 03/22/2007 2:28:20 PM PDT by neverdem
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.