Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legislation Introduced in the Senate to Renew and Strengthen Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Join Together Online ^ | 7/24/2003

Posted on 07/25/2003 8:22:10 AM PDT by RogueIsland

Press Release
Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence
4403 1st Avenue, SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
Phone: 319-743-7823

Bill Would Meet Original Intent of Congress to Protect Americans and Law Enforcement Personnel

Cedar Rapids, IA - Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV) today (July 21st) announced its strong support for legislation introduced in the Senate to renew the federal assault weapons ban. The legislation, introduced by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Jon Corzine (D-NJ), would not only make the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines permanent, but it would also significantly strengthen current law to meet the original intent of Congress. The Senate bill (S. 1431) is a companion bill to the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003", introduced in the House of Representatives in May by Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI).

The federal assault weapons ban (AWB) was enacted by Congress in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. However, the current AWB has a time limit of 10 years and will expire on September 13, 2004, unless reauthorized by the 108th Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Both President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have stated their support for the assault weapons ban. Ashcroft has said that the ban is constitutional.

"Assault weapons are weapons of war. They are designed to hose down individuals with a spray of lethal bullets. They have no place in a civil society," noted John Johnson, IPGV's executive director.

Unfortunately, the current AWB has failed to meet the intent of Congress when it passed the ban in 1994. Gun manufacturers have been able to circumvent the ban by making small modifications to their weapons, renaming them, and marketing them as legal post-ban models. Examples are the Colt Match Target Rifle, Olympic Arms PCR-7 (stands for "politically correct rifle"), and Intratec AB-10 (stands for "after ban").

The limitations of the current AWB are well documented and known by gun violence prevention groups, the gun lobby, law enforcement, the media, and Congress. The Lautenberg bill would address these concerns, with measures including a redefinition of the term "assault weapon" to include any semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and includes one listed additional assault feature such as a pistol grip, fore-end grip, or collapsible stock. This crucial improvement recognizes the characteristics that make an assault weapon especially lethal.

Kirsten Meredith, IPGV's communications director said, "While the gun industry has blatantly evaded the current law and continued to manufacture and sell post-ban assault weapons, Americans continue to die. One of every five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty are killed with assault weapons -- many times copycat models that do not fall under the current ban."

Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence considers that military-style, semiautomatic assault weapons constitute an unreasonable risk of death and injury to all Americans, especially law enforcement personnel who must deal with criminals who possess these weapons. Therefore, IPGV supports the Lautenberg bill to renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban to meet the original intent of Congress.



Thank Senators Lautenberg and Corzine for their commitment to keeping assault weapons off our streets! Express your support for the bill (S. 1431) they have introduced to renew the assault weapons ban!

The Honorable Frank Lautenberg
United States Senate
324 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3224

The Honorable Jon Corzine
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-4744

Thanks for your dedication to preventing gun death and injury in Iowa!

Date of Release: July 21, 2003


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; bang; banglist; guncontrol; guns
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: Dan from Michigan
Actually this is a case of ginning up a campaign issue......

A bill like this would never escape Tom DeLays house alive....

They just need something to stump about.
21 posted on 07/25/2003 9:15:56 AM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
A bill like this would never escape Tom DeLays house alive....

But will it escape Hastert's? I'm not AS worried about the house as I am the senate(which has a slight Anti-majority), but if another Columbine happens where suburban white kids get killed, especially with a 'banned gun', then look out. I can see some 'compromise measure' passing.

22 posted on 07/25/2003 9:27:06 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("If it feels good, Do It! Don't Think Twice!" - Lynyrd Skynyrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Hastert may be speaker, but that is becausehe looks like Kind old Uncle Bob.

DeLay is the lynchpin.
23 posted on 07/25/2003 9:35:06 AM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Maybe this chump should be taught the difference between semiautomatic and full automatic.

I suspect this chump understands the difference perfectly. He's deliberately fogging the issue for those who don't know the difference, and since it's worked very well him in the past he's going to keep it up and get louder.

The best advice I've ever heard for countering this type of ignorance is to "take a liberal shooting." They'll have fun, learn important safety lessons, and learn that gun owners aren't all knuckle dragging, wife beating racists that they're portrayed to be.

24 posted on 07/25/2003 9:57:32 AM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
Boy,,,,that SUCKS!!
25 posted on 07/25/2003 10:16:49 AM PDT by SCDogPapa (In Dixie Land I'll take my stand to live and die in Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
They are designed to hose down individuals with a spray of lethal bullets.

Ah, now I get it!! I'm didn't realize they used leathal bullets. Shucks, I guess we better ban those leathal-bullet-spraying weapons of war.{/sarcasm}

26 posted on 07/25/2003 11:32:40 AM PDT by jdogbearhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
"Ashcroft has said that the ban is constitutional."

Well, besides this not being up to him to determine, I view this statement as a bold-faced lie. This is a typical propaganda tactic of the gungrabbers, in making blanket statements with no references to back them up, to be swallowed whole by an ignorant and unthinking public at large. To my knowledge, Ashcroft has said no such thing.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

27 posted on 07/25/2003 2:04:50 PM PDT by Joe Brower ("A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless." - Antonin Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland

28 posted on 07/25/2003 2:48:25 PM PDT by vannrox (The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Ain't that the truth.
29 posted on 07/25/2003 3:55:33 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
I repeat my earlier statement on this issue:

If any form of the AWB passes, I will never vote for GWB or any other Republican ever again. Period.
30 posted on 07/25/2003 6:16:49 PM PDT by the lone wolf (Good Luck, and watch out for stobor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
oi! you could ping a fella.
31 posted on 07/25/2003 8:04:39 PM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
that's the general incremental idea.
32 posted on 07/25/2003 8:05:52 PM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: inquest
why are the republicans not responding with a counter-proposal to, oh, I don't know, repeal the 1934(?) restrictions on machine guns? If all they do is try to hold the line, they'll lose.
33 posted on 07/25/2003 8:08:04 PM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
I'd settle for a repeal of the 1986 ban on further manufactor of machine guns for sale to the public. That is what has the price up to ten-fold of what they were in the early eighties.

I don't like the NFA laws, but the 1986 ban is far worse...
34 posted on 07/26/2003 6:06:19 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Chewbacca
It is NOT about guns, it is about control. Even the term “Assault Rifle” is out of context. By military definition, any rifle that is not a fully automatic machine gun cannot be an assault rifle. They knew the general public would confuse these rifles with the military versions and think machine gun (OMG!). They also knew that the range snobs (the hunter / bench rest shooter with the $4500.00 bolt action) would not band together to prevent the ban (i.e. “What do need one of those things for…”). This is an example of divide and conquer.

They believe that they can take steps to remove one type of firearm after another until they have removed all firearms from the general public. It is safer for politicians that way, especially when the want to cram an agenda down your throat!
35 posted on 07/26/2003 6:30:14 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: Beowulf .50cal
Its' BS. John Lott has rebutted that one. Just more lies from the anti's.
37 posted on 07/26/2003 7:36:13 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf .50cal
The real stat is less then 2% of all crimes involving a firearm. I doesn't mean they were used, just there. Normally picked up during the bust.
38 posted on 07/26/2003 7:38:04 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
"Assault weapons are weapons of war. They are designed to hose down individuals with a spray of lethal bullets. They have no place in a civil society,"

I'm assuming, then, that Police and Law Enforcement will not be allowed to have these weapons either? Or are they not a part of a civil society? Doubt it!

I think a lot of our (gun owners) current problems with the type of firearms we can own began back when we (NRA actually) accepted the idea of justifying firearms as being for "sporting purposes". A .22 short target rifle would meet that test. Hard to justify an AK as sporting when a .22 will meet the requriement more easily.

Personally, I can't see strictly sporting rifles being protected by the 2nd. The 9th and 10th are for sports. But we're too busy trying to make the argument that an AK is really a sporting purpose firearm to worry about losing the word war in the arena of the general public (as in "you don't need an AK-47 to hunt Bambi").

39 posted on 07/26/2003 8:08:09 AM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Laton Caliente
I don't like the NFA laws, but the 1986 ban is far worse...

FOPA. The Fireaarms Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan himself. How can you possibly object to protecting firearms onwers? Or to anything that our conservative hero Reagan did?

40 posted on 07/26/2003 8:13:22 AM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson