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.
As you said, they're stupid, but not that stupid. There need not be a companion bill in the Senate, and right now there isn't, although in the past there has been. The bill will not even be passed by the house in its current form. Instead it will become Title whatever of some larger bill. That way they can vote for it without nearly the consequences from the electorate. That's almost always the way that anti arms rights laws have been passed, including the original AW ban.
There is a war on you know. The Armies are shooting up the surplus stuff themselves in training, and keeping the new production for use against the Jihadies. Our Army may even be buying up the surplus from other countries for training use, but I don't know that for certain. But even if they aren't, South and Central America are in something of a froth too right now, with our little Hugo in control in Venezuela working with the Narco criminals in Columbia and elsewhere. I once bought a batch of Venezuelan CAVIM ammo, but then found out that it would gum up my G-3, so gave it to a guy with a 1919A1, who went through *lots* of 7.62 NATO ammo.
Hugo is giving all that to the Narco terrorists these days. The other coutries of the region are probably hanging on to what they've got. Out of date or not.
I know the Radway green stuff is in use by our troops
Also don't be fooled by some Rat running as a conservative..
bookmark
PMP???
Thats good stuff...
I dont know about PMP.
All I know is this guatamalen stuff is very accurate
"...driven..."???
hehehe, let me know when you do join...I'll join with you...
With all thats been filed and coming our way for a good fight...I have my concerns about the outcome...But I am hoping we prevail...
BTW, I just remembered something...I'll call you as soon as I can this week...
Its also good stuff
CHECK THIS SITE OUT:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:9:./temp/~bd7Vz9::|/bss/d110query.html|
It gives the current status of the bill and is updated periodically. It was introduced on 2/13/2007 and- SO FAR - has no co-sponsors.
Its sitting in committee. CONTACT the Committee Members and ask them to kill it. It CAN die "in committee".
Personally, I DOUBT the Dems want to shoot this off BEFORE the Presidential Election. They will probably wait until AFTER Hillery gets in - if she does - to do it.
BUT, never take anything for granted.
McCarthy is essentially a one issue candidate who is microcerebral on matters of substance. If I recall correctly, she became involved in politics because her husband was a cop and was killed in a shooting incident. Like too many of these individuals she is targetting the tool instead of the party who used it. And I'm sure Winnie Brady, the Methodist Church, Ceasefire and the other anti-gun ghouls were riht there to direct her in her deepest moment of grief.
At any rate, you can follow the "progress" of this bill by revisting the site and updating it.
The mear fact that it has been introduced "now" is in no way indicative that it can and will be re-introduced in its current form (maybe even improved upon more) when and if the liberals gain control of the White House, and maintain even the slim-est of majorities in both houses...
If it dies in committee, that only tells me that it will be revived in a little over two years from now in that situation...
I would not be surprised if it is pushed through...Nothing is really there to stop it...And if the Liberal leadership determine that it will not damage the '08 elections, you can bet it'll get pushed, regardless if it passes or not...
And the failure will be complete when the President signs it, which he has stated he would...
The libs saw what happened when they abandoned the anti-gun rhetoric. I doubt if they will risk this gain before the 2008 elections are over.
If the libs maintain control ofr Congress and DO take over the Presidency, thye most definitely WILL introduce it.
If Bush is smart - and os far his intellect hasn't impressed me, he will eithjer veto the bill, exercise a "pocket veto" or consditionally veto it until it is retaylored to its original form.
Gun control is merely ONE issue in the continuing culture war against American traditons - but a VERY IMPORTANT ONE.
As someone said in his tagline "The Second Amendment is the reset button for American Government" and the libs KNOW it.
There is. Their Stadt Sicherheitsdienst can round up those who don't comply much more easily if we're disarmed
I forget...Is it "El Gato" that has that tagline???
I really think its a very poingiant (sp? ecchhh) and relevant statement...
Opps, looks like he may have changed it when I wasn't looking...
If Bush signs this into law, and does not Veto. I will call for his impeachment.
I used to say a long time ago that:
"I do not fear my government, I fear the tyrrany of good intentions."
I used to at that time thought that the gun-control crowd was utterly stupid, and had zero reason for existence...
Now I recant that idea...They are smart, calculating but still full of it, and still do not deserve to exist...And our government seems to be very comfortable in bed with them...
I bet they will try to sell it as "reasonable" because it has a 'grandfather' clause in it so if you got yours, you don't care that much. Even if that is where it would stop, and I doubt that, I want my kids to be able to get what I can, and there is no reason we should let these idiots take that away from us and our kids, and our country.
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.