Police seize rocket launchers, Uzi from home

Also I'm by no means an expert but I don't believe the Army uses 30 mm ammo.

Apache Chain gun used 30mm according to this

There were also cases marked "explosive" and US Army 30mm ordinance which were seized

Well I've got cases marked "explosive" and cases marked US Army 25mm, but in both instances that's not what is in them. These were probably surplus cases, available at nearly any gun show, flea market or via Shotgun news.

I have GOT to get me one of these!!!...........FRegards

Apache gunship gatling guns

Chain guns, not multi-barrell Gatlings. GAU-8 in the Air Force A-10 is a Gatling, but uses different 30mm ammunition. One guy here at work brought back an empty case from a recent visit to an A-10 base. It's a big honker.

Wow. Do you have to committ a crime to get a restraining order taken out against you? I thought those things were pretty liberally granted. If so, I'm amazed that is all it takes to remove your weapons. Hopefully this will get challenged and beaten.

It's already been tried, in the circuit most likely to overturn it. No Joy, although the federal 5th ciruit court did say the 2nd amendment was an individual right, a domestic restraining order, even a boilerplate one issued as part of divorce proceedings, was enough "due process" to remove the right.

I don't know. Given the amount of ordnance this guy had lying about, it's quite possible the contents of those containers were "as labeled."

If they had been, there would have been charges filed. He'd be in a federal lockup somewhere right now, or would have been until he posted bond, if he could get the serveral million that bond would have been set at.

Apache Chain gun used

Oops, should have been "uses", not "used". After taking a look at the picture and reading the verbige, it's probalby not even a chain gun, but rather "merely" an automatic cannon. Some European aircraft use these, at least in 20mm, and many Navy aircraft also used autocannon, even well after the USAF/GE developed the M-61 20mm powered Gatling. The autocannons tend to be lighter than either chain or Gatling for the same caliber. But you also get higher rates of fire with the others, and longer barrell life with the Gatling (since multiple barrels share the rate of fire)

"Apache gunship gatling guns"

I thought it was a chain gun not a gatling gun

http://hometown.aol.com/ah64info/systems.htm

Police say under department policy and state law, people who are issued restraining orders or protective orders cannot possess firearms.

I thought that was the most disturbing part--the police being in the business of deciding who can and can't possess firearms. Not content with waiting to get un-Constitutional legislation passed, they've taken it on themselves to make the rules.

But, I guess it's not much different from having a cop or a judge decide who gets a concealed carry permit. If one of our Founders were to come back to life and pay me a visit, I'd be ashamed to admit that we put up with this crap.

How was it that HITLER confiscated guns before he started going on a genocidal rampage?

Gun Registration wasn't it.

Does anyone want to bet that these cases were plain old GI ammo cans that get sold at flea markets?

I'll take a side wager that the rocket launchers were expended LAW (Light Antitank Weapon) launchers minus the HEAT missiles (High Energy Anti-Tank). They're just plastic tubes with cheesy sights. We used to call it the Matty Mattel bazooka.

Police say under department policy and state law, people who are issued restraining orders or protective orders cannot possess firearms.

Wasn't this part of Klinton's Violence Against Women Act?

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Doc Contents

Bill 1 of 50
GPO's PDF version of this bill References to this bill in the Congressional Record Link to the Bill Summary & Status file. Full Display - 14,798 bytes.[Help]

Our Lady of Peace Act (Introduced in House)

HR 4757 IH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4757
To improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 2002
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. KIRK, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. GILMAN, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. ANDREWS, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. FRANK, Ms. NORTON, Mr. MOORE, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. HOEFFEL, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. FORD, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. WEINER, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. WATERS, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. RUSH, Mr. CLAY, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. DELAURO, and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Our Lady of Peace Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Since 1994, more than 689,000 individuals have been denied a gun for failing a background check.

(2) States that fail to computerize their criminal and mental illness records are the primary cause of delays for background checks. Helping States automate their records will reduce delays for law-abiding gun owners.

(3) 25 States have automated less than 60 percent of their felony criminal conviction records.

(4) 33 States do not automate or share disqualifying mental health records.

(5) In 13 States, domestic violence restraining orders are not automated or accessible by the national instant criminal background check system.

(6) In 15 States, no domestic violence misdemeanor records are automated or accessible by the national instant criminal background check system.

TITLE I--TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS

SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--

(1) by striking `may' and inserting `shall, not less frequently than quarterly,';

(2) by inserting `electronically' before `furnish'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following: `The head of each such department or agency shall ascertain whether the department or agency has any records on any person described in any paragraph of section 922(g), title 18, United States Code, and on being made aware that the department or agency of such a record, shall transmit a copy of the record to the Attorney General for inclusion in the system. The Attorney General shall notify the Congress on a quarterly basis as to whether the Attorney General has obtained from each such department or agency the information required to be provided to the Attorney General under this subsection.'.

(b) IMMIGRATION RECORDS- The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall immediately transmit all relevant records of persons disqualified from acquiring a firearm under Federal law, including but not limited to, illegal aliens, visitors to the United States on student visas, and visitors to the United States on tourist visas, to the Attorney General for inclusion in the national instant criminal background check system.

SEC. 102. TRANSMITTAL OF STATE RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

(a) IN GENERAL- A State that does not meet the requirements of this section shall be subject to section 104.

(b) REQUIREMENTS- The requirements of this section are as follows:

(1) The State shall provide the name of and other relevant identifying information relating to persons disqualified from acquiring a firearm under Federal or State law to the Attorney General for inclusion in the national instant criminal background check system.

(2) Any information provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1) may be accessed only by personnel legally entitled to access such system.

(3) The State shall certify to the Attorney General that at least 95 percent of all information under paragraph (1) has been provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1).

SEC. 103. TRANSMITTAL OF STATE MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

(a) IN GENERAL- A State that does not meet the requirement of this section shall be subject to section 104.

(b) REQUIREMENT- The requirement of this section is that the State shall provide the name of and other relevant identifying information relating to persons adjudicated as mental defective or those committed to mental institutions to the Attorney General for inclusion in the national instant criminal background check system.

(c) DEFINITION- For purposes of subsection (b), an adjudication as a mental defective occurs when a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority determines that an individual is mentally retarded or of marked subnormal intelligence, mentally ill, or mentally incompetent, including--

(1) defendants in criminal cases adjudicated as not guilty by reason of insanity, or found incompetent to stand trial;

(2) individuals found to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or illness;

(3) individuals involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other authority;

(4) individuals committed for reasons other than mental defectiveness or mental illness; and

(5) individuals committed within the past 5 years to a mental institution--

(A) for treatment of alcoholism; or

(B) as an unlawful user of, or person addicted to, any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), provided that such unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.

(d) EXCEPTION- This section does not apply to--

(1) a person--

(A) in a mental institution for observation; or

(B) voluntarily committed to a mental institution; or

(2) information protected by doctor-patient privilege.

(e) PRIVACY PROTECTIONS- The Attorney General shall work with State and local law enforcement and the mental health community to establish protocols for protecting the privacy of information provided in this section. Such protocols shall be in addition to any other applicable laws for protecting the privacy of such information.

(e) COMMENCEMENT OF TRANSMITTAL- Notwithstanding subsection (c), the State shall begin to comply with subsection (b) not later than January 1, 2005. If such compliance occurs before the establishment of protocols under subsection (c), the Attorney General shall ensure that any information provided under this section may be accessed only by personnel authorized by law to access the national instant criminal background check system.

SEC. 104. PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

(a) ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the progress of States in automating the databases containing information under sections 102 and 103 and in providing that information pursuant to the requirements of sections 102 and 103.

(b) PENALTIES-

(1) AFTER THREE YEARS- During the period beginning three years after the date of the enactment of this Act and ending five years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General may (but need not), for any State that fails to provide under sections 102 and 103 at least 60 percent of the information required to be provided under those sections, decline to allocate to that State up to 5 percent of the amounts that would otherwise be allocated to that State under section 506 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3756).

(2) AFTER FIVE YEARS- After the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall, for any State that fails to provide under sections 102 and 103 at least 95 percent of the information required to be provided under those sections, decline to allocate to that State 10 percent of the amounts that would otherwise be allocated to that State under section 506 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3765).

(3) WAIVER BY ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Attorney General may waive the applicability of paragraph (2) to a State if that State provides compelling evidence of its inability to meet the requirements of sections 102 and 103.

(c) REALLOCATION- Any funds that are not allocated for failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (b) shall be reallocated to States that meet such requirements.

SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS TO STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to each State, in a manner consistent with the national criminal history improvement program, which shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of local government and State and local courts, to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations.

(b) USE OF GRANT AMOUNTS- Grants under this section may only be awarded for the following purposes:

(1) Building databases that are directly related to checks under the national instant criminal background check system (NICS), including court disposition and corrections records.

(2) Assisting States in establishing or enhancing their own capacities to perform NICS background checks.

(3) Improving final dispositions of criminal records.

(4) Supplying mental health records to NICS.

(5) Supplying domestic violence restraining orders and temporary restraining orders for inclusion in NICS.

(c) CONDITION- As a condition of receiving a grant under this section, a State shall specify the projects for which grant amounts will be used, and shall use such amounts only as specified. A State that violates this section shall be liable to the Attorney General for the full amount granted.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005.

TITLE II--FOCUSING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT RECORDS

SEC. 201. CONTINUING EVALUATIONS.

(a) EVALUATION REQUIRED- The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics shall study and evaluate the operations of the national instant criminal background check system. Such study and evaluation shall include, but
not be limited to, compilations and analyses of the operations and record systems of the agencies and organizations participating in such system.

(b) REPORT ON GRANTS- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Director shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation of sections 102 and 103 of this Act.

(c) REPORT ON BEST PRACTICES- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Director shall submit to Congress, and to each State participating in the National Criminal History Improvement Program, a report of the practices of the States regarding the collection, maintenance, automation, and transmittal of identifying information relating to individuals described in section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, by the State or any other agency, or any other records relevant to the national instant criminal background check system, that the Director considers to be best practices.

TITLE III--GRANTS TO STATE COURTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN AUTOMATION AND TRANSMITTAL OF DISPOSITION RECORDS

SEC. 301. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

(a) IN GENERAL- From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to each State for use by the chief judicial officer of the State to improve the handling of proceedings related to criminal history dispositions and temporary restraining orders as they relate to disqualification from firearms ownership under State and Federal laws.

(b) USE OF FUNDS- Amounts granted under this section shall be used by the chief judicial officer only as follows:

(1) For fiscal year 2003, such amounts shall be used to carry out assessments of the capabilities of the courts of the State for the automation and transmission to State and Federal record repositories the arrest and conviction records of such courts to the extent relevant to disqualification from firearms ownership under State and Federal laws.

(2) For fiscal years after 2003, such amounts shall be used to implement policies, systems, and procedures for the automation and transmission to State and Federal record repositories the arrest and conviction records of such courts to the extent relevant to disqualification from firearms ownership under State and Federal laws.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this section $125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005.

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Doc Contents

Any of you see your congress man/woman on the list of those backing this bill?

I just l love how they name these bills.

H. R. 4757 To improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes.

Daily Digest - Tuesday, July 23, 2002 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 MISCELLANEOUS MEASURESCommittee on the Judiciary: Ordered reported the following bills: H.R. 1452, amended, Family Reunification Act of 2001; H.R. 4757 , amended, Our Lady of Peace Act; and H.R. 3995, Housing Affordability for America Act of 2002. The Committee began markup of H.R. 4600, Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Health Care (HEALTH) Act of 2002.

What is the "Committee on the Judiciary"?

Slang for gatling gun?

Yep, lets all register them guns.

no doubt. will make us all safer. (gagggg... rrrretch...)

The difference is that if you have reason to fear for your life (and so have a protective order - that's my guess) you can't have a firearm. Now wouldn't that apply to all people in higher office too?

Well... ideally. Differs from state to state too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387ec3ea6413.html
check this article.