Q:

GUN BAN?

Heya Peeps,

Was browsing around and came acroos this. I know a bunch of yall have seen it, but I think it deserves a “Sticky”.

Peace,

ASMALLVOICE

From the NRA:

THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;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.

General Chat

All Replies

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 37 total)

1 2 3

One of the problems that we have when we are trying to identify a semi auto from a full auto is the fact that some of these tech 9 or uzi weapons have been illegally converted to FA, either by changing parts or filing the sear. Again, these people who are doing these modifications have no regard for laws or soceity. Gun laws, any laws, are a joke to them especially when they are high on crack or whatever their drug of choice is.

The California AW ban of 1989 was put to the people with false figures. Roberti and Roos had most Californians believeing that a gun crime occurred every 10 seconds and was perpetrated with a deraded assault weapon in fully automatic mode. It was passed on misinformation, as so many anti-gun laws are.

Ah…full-auto weapons are illegal? If I am not mistaken, there are dozen of states that allow class 3 weapons for private ownersship. The most linient of them is TX. This has nothing to do with Hollywood.

That I like to argue… 😆 😀 😉

No really, weapons bans are a great way to make potato soup… 😀

I mean, let’s make breathing illegal and watch the liberals squirm…

No wait, it was, Palin in 2012 since Bush wasn’t as bad as it could be…

No, it was, ah, fuck it pass the ammo!!! 😀

quote synopsys:

Which doesn’t undermine my point at all…

Which point is that?

quote DKOwen:

quote synopsys:

quote DKOwen:

The guns you mention are semi auto (perhaps you should brush up your understanding of such important details), the automatic versions are prohibited from all but the cops and Hollywood (go figure…)

Really, so you can guarantee there are none on the street being used illegally?

No, but in this case I think I did prove you used the wrong terms. That is I proved you incorrect in an important point?

Details, it’s all about details. That’s how laws work.

Doug Owen

CA ban was indeed semi-auto assault weapons (i looked it up), federal ban was full auto, both are banned in CA. Both are being used by criminals. Still don’t see how it is so important? Are not both of these types of weapons banned in California? Which doesn’t undermine my point at all…

quote DKOwen:

quote synopsys:

quote DKOwen:

The guns you mention are semi auto (perhaps you should brush up your understanding of such important details), the automatic versions are prohibited from all but the cops and Hollywood (go figure…)

Really, so you can guarantee there are none on the street being used illegally?

No, but in this case I think I did prove you used the wrong terms. That is I proved you incorrect in an important point?

Details, it’s all about details. That’s how laws work.

Doug Owen

So they are not using banned weapons? No Uzi’s are auto and no Tech 9’s are auto, really? The important point was that the criminals don’t care, how did you prove me wrong on that? I don’t get it…

We are not discussing laws, we are discussing how the criminals break and ignore them, so your saying since they aren’t automatic (which in this case can not be proven one way or another) my point was proven wrong?

So I should have said assault, but it can’t be proven that they are not full auto and chances are some were (which is the federal ban)… But still that was not the point, the point was most of the weapons used are banned, auto or otherwise…

Still this is more of a national discussion on bans, neither of which have taken the weapons in question out of the hands of the criminals… And that is my point.

quote DKOwen:

BTW we of course agree on the goal, we just differ on the best (or IMO only effective) weapon in the fight.

Doug Owen

No pun intended right? 😆

I hope your right, this ban would be fucked to say the least.

quote synopsys:

quote DKOwen:

The guns you mention are semi auto (perhaps you should brush up your understanding of such important details), the automatic versions are prohibited from all but the cops and Hollywood (go figure…)

Really, so you can guarantee there are none on the street being used illegally?

No, but in this case I think I did prove you used the wrong terms. That is I proved you incorrect in an important point?

Details, it’s all about details. That’s how laws work.

Doug Owen

quote synopsys:

DK, your missing my points…

What did the NRA do to STOP the weapons law changes in California before the ban that passed? I would say not much because it PASSED… How should I educate myself to believe it didn’t happen? I could care less what happened after, we still have the bans…

No, I think I got ’em OK. OTOH, you may have missed mine. Please check it again. Many dozens MORE bad gun laws have been stopped. Against tall odds. The NRA has been OVERWHELMINGLY effective in that fight. The very one we now face.

Got it?

BTW we of course agree on the goal, we just differ on the best (or IMO only effective) weapon in the fight.

Doug Owen

quote DKOwen:

The guns you mention are semi auto (perhaps you should brush up your understanding of such important details), the automatic versions are prohibited from all but the cops and Hollywood (go figure…)

Really, so you can guarantee there are none on the street being used illegally?

quote shrpshotr28:

Actually, all ownership restrictions as related to law abiding citizens could be completely done away with and it not affect crime rate…..

Bingo!!!!!! 😉

DK, your missing my points…

What did the NRA do to STOP the weapons law changes in California before the ban that passed? I would say not much because it PASSED… How should I educate myself to believe it didn’t happen? I could care less what happened after, we still have the bans…

On the other point, criminals don’t care about breaking the laws… Just because assault weapons have been banned I doubt that the criminal says to himself, hey wait these weapons are against the law, I shouldn’t have them… All the weapons the restaurant hijackers use are on the ban list, auto or semi…

I am on your side on this, just trying to make simple points about the fact that more weapons bans are bad ideas… 🙄

IMO, we need no new laws re firearms.

Actually, all ownership restrictions as related to law abiding citizens could be completely done away with and it not affect crime rate…..

IF……..

The Govt./Law enforcement would take a heavy hand to enforcing/prosecuting/sentencing gun related crime based on the laws already on the books.

But this issue was never really about stopping crime 🙄 🙄 🙄

quote synopsys:

Automatic weapons are illegal in California right? Even seen the video of the recent restaurant takeovers in Cali? A Tech 9 here and there, an occasional Uzi, maybe even an AK47 with a pistol grip so they can get it under their coats…

Let’s be careful here as well. The guns you mention are semi auto (perhaps you should brush up your understanding of such important details), the automatic versions are prohibited from all but the cops and Hollywood (go figure…) federally since ’86. No new autos allowed. If you live in a state that allows them (about half IIRC) with the appropriate permits, you have to buy an old one or scrap an old one to get a new MP5 for instance.

The now banned AKs, ARs, Uzis and so on here in California are grandfathered to those of us who registered them. They cannot be legally sold in the state to anyone else. But they are semi auto, not automatic. Very important difference.

Doug Owen

quote synopsys:

And did you know if your a felon you can illegally conceal carry, when asked by a cop you have the right to not incriminate yourself…

Also I think getting popped for concealed carry without a permit is only a misdemeanor felony so you can still legally purchase and own a gun…

I think tougher gun laws should be put in place over the further banning of firearms…

Let’s be careful here. All citizens have the right (that means it can’t be taken away, right?) to not incriminate themselves. What are you suggesting, we should suspend this bit of liberty for this reason? IMO that’s pretty scary. Make it OK to arrest and strip search anyone ‘just in case’?

Even after arrest. Remember the Miranda decision?

And yes, concealed carry is sometimes a misdemeanor (not such thing as a ‘misdemeanor felony’, it’s one or the other as I understand it). FYI lots and lots of honest folks pack in violation of the law. But carry a gun in a crime (even if it’s not used) and you not only get RKBA problems, but extra jail time for it.

Each guy gets his own opinions of course, but most of us feel there are already too many restrictive gun laws and don’t welcome more. So far the bad guys seem to be avoiding the over 20,000 such laws nationally, a few more isn’t likely to change stuff. It’s already illegal to use guns in crime, right?

Doug Owen

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 37 total)

1 2 3
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.