Yes, the libs propose an AWB every year.

So fight them every damn year, and show the world what enemies of the constitution they are. Don't give them an inch - an inch is all Hitler needed to get started.

Thanks for your sig HeavyMetal. I'm copying it in other forums.

Quoted: Quoted: /\  Pretty much sums it up but be prepared for someone to come along and call HeavyMetal an idiot and a sheep.   And I will proactively call them Brady Agent Provacteurs  (Buddy, they are here, believe it) inbread and meth heads.  Only Brady trolls would even attempt it.  It is ok to have rational fear but irrational fear is the haindmaiden of the enemy and it leads to defeatism and despair. I swear, we have some real chicken littles on this board( not the majority thankfully) and the trolls and agent provacteurs easily get them stirred up.  Some times I am tempted to start a troll account just to prove how easily a panic rumor can be spread. We need more backbone and less despair.  We have the advantage, are we willing to do the hard work to keep it?  The only sure way we can lose it to quit.

Irrational fear or not, HR1022 is a great excuse for me to get that M16A4 clone built ASAP



ETA  2008 is the year, folks. Thats when it's all decided. Be ready.

So it looks like this section would make any legal rifles we purchased after the ban's sunset again illegal, and attempt to take our guns:

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

As it doesn't attempt to change the effective date of the first law, but reinstates it "as in effect just before the repeal"

I have emailed and called several times and renewed my NRA membership.  Time to write a letter.

Quoted: So it looks like this section would make any legal rifles we purchased after the ban's sunset again illegal, and attempt to take our guns: (a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Paragraphs (30) and (31) of section 921(a), subsections (v) and (w) and Appendix A of section 922, and the last 2 sentences of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law. As it doesn't attempt to change the effective date of the first law, but reinstates it "as in effect just before the repeal"

SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.

     Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

           (1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and

           (2) by adding after and below the end the following:

     `(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.

But does that apply to THIS enactment, or the original enactment, which they're bringing back?

The exemption applies to "the date of the enactment of this subparagraph" not to the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which was 09-13-1994.

But they're amending the original bill though... to add the 'transfer', so this text is being pasted into the original AWB bill of 94.

The bill is poorly written and was cobbled together from the 2003 bill McCarthy introduced prior to the expiration of the AWB in 09-1994. Congress cannot criminalize behavior or in this case possession of assault weapons retroactively. This bill criminalizes the possession of assault weapons on the date this bill (Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007) is enacted into law (passed by the House & Senate and signed into law by the POTUS).  


"As of September 13, 2004, the provisions of Public Law 103-322, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, covering semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices are no longer in effect. The regulations
implementing these provisions also are no longer in effect.

Specifically, there is no longer a Federal prohibition on the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices."

Quoted: Like I said, many NRA members support a new ban, and most are against any real gun reform such as repealing the 1986 MG ban. You should look into Gun Owners of America gunowners.org. They're one of the few groups who are really on the 2nd amendment's side. NRA is just an ass-puppet for hunters, and doesn't really believe in freedom.

STFU and stop spreading this anti-NRA bullshit. Every day someone like you tries telling us a bunch of crap about the NRA only caring about hunters blah, blah, blah. If you ever read the NRAs publications or get ther IRA alerts you'd see it's not true.

www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=2668

The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced In Congress; McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

Saturday, February 24, 2007

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.

• 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.”



LOL In a very sick way I hope it passes. Time to wake up the fudds.. "But but they don't want to take my hunting rifles/shotguns." Oh yes they do...

Looking at this the Rem 740/1100 series rifles and Browning BAR would be affected too..

This is the part which most worries me:

"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.'.

Goodbye pump shotguns and bolt action rifles. Yes I know it refers to semiautos, but they will find a way to twist it.

Can we tack this?


I haven't called yet, when is this up for hearing?

Quoted: Quoted: Like I said, many NRA members support a new ban, and most are against any real gun reform such as repealing the 1986 MG ban. You should look into Gun Owners of America gunowners.org. They're one of the few groups who are really on the 2nd amendment's side. NRA is just an ass-puppet for hunters, and doesn't really believe in freedom. STFU and stop spreading this anti-NRA bullshit. Every day someone like you tries telling us a bunch of crap about the NRA only caring about hunters blah, blah, blah. If you ever read the NRAs publications or get ther IRA alerts you'd see it's not true.

+1, the NRA has done FAR more than GOA will ever accomplish.  Who are These "many NRA members" that support another ban??  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Like I said, many NRA members support a new ban, and most are against any real gun reform such as repealing the 1986 MG ban. You should look into Gun Owners of America gunowners.org. They're one of the few groups who are really on the 2nd amendment's side. NRA is just an ass-puppet for hunters, and doesn't really believe in freedom. STFU and stop spreading this anti-NRA bullshit. Every day someone like you tries telling us a bunch of crap about the NRA only caring about hunters blah, blah, blah. If you ever read the NRAs publications or get ther IRA alerts you'd see it's not true. +1, the NRA has done FAR more than GOA will ever accomplish.  Who are These "many NRA members" that support another ban??

I sure as hell don't.

If you own guns and are not a member of the NRA, you need to be...

Quoted: (Actually I'm calling BS here - nobody I ever came across admitted they had no ban stuff during the ban - everybody conformed)

I did, so you have now.

STFU and stop spreading this anti-NRA bullshit. Every day someone like you tries telling us a bunch of crap about the NRA only caring about hunters blah, blah, blah. If you ever read the NRAs publications or get ther IRA alerts you'd see it's not true.

Write them and ask if they are working to repeal the 1986 MG ban, or if they believe the BATF should be abolished. Go ahead and see what they say. Go ahead and poll their members to see how many believe in an AWB. The answers are: 1. They do not want to see the 1986 MG ban repealed, 2. They believe the BATF is necessary as an enforcer of the laws that have been passed [to infringe upon] our right to bear arms. 3. A majority of their members (including plenty of anti-gun politicians) would support another AWB.

Why do you think all the politicians are running on the platform this term that they are hunters, or that they believe it's important to protect hunters' and sportsmen's "2nd amendment rights" ? Just take a look around at all the propaganda geared at hunting and sports on the 2nd amendment to gain control of the weak gun lobby.

Quoted: STFU and stop spreading this anti-NRA bullshit. Every day someone like you tries telling us a bunch of crap about the NRA only caring about hunters blah, blah, blah. If you ever read the NRAs publications or get ther IRA alerts you'd see it's not true. Write them and ask if they are working to repeal the 1986 MG ban, or if they believe the BATF should be abolished. Go ahead and see what they say. Go ahead and poll their members to see how many believe in an AWB. The answers are: 1. They do not want to see the 1986 MG ban repealed, 2. They believe the BATF is necessary as an enforcer of the laws that have been passed [to infringe upon] our right to bear arms. 3. A majority of their members (including plenty of anti-gun politicians) would support another AWB. Why do you think all the politicians are running on the platform this term that they are hunters, or that they believe it's important to protect hunters' and sportsmen's "2nd amendment rights" ? Just take a look around at all the propaganda geared at hunting and sports on the 2nd amendment to gain control of the weak gun lobby.

I agree that the NRA has certainly done a poor job lately in framing the debate on the Second Amendment.  They really need to stress the importance to the overall Constitution of maintaining the Second Amendmet rights and adopt the recent DC Circuit Court of Appeals Parker decision as their stance.

This needs to be a debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the importance of preserving the Constitution as a whole by not legislating away Costitutional Amedments.  If the anti-gun crowd wants to do away with firearms than they have the option of amending the Constitution, but anything short of that would be in direct violation of it and an abuse of power.

This has ZERO to do with hunting and the NRA hasn't been vocal enough about that.

I agree that the NRA has certainly done a poor job lately in framing the debate on the Second Amendment.

Try piss poor.

It's evident right on their 'About us' page:

In 1986, the NRA and millions of gun owners nationwide applauded as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.

Which, as you know, included the machine gun ban and turned the ATF into a brute squad. Tell me again why I should support these hypocrites?

I finally received a reply from my Congressman.

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

As you may know, H.R. 1022, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), would reinstate for ten years certain repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and ammunition feeding devices. It revises and expands the definition of prohibited semiautomatic assault weapons and accessories. Furthermore, it prohibits the transfer of any such device unless the transfer is mediated through a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency.

This legislation is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this particular committee, please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this bill come before the full House for a vote.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you will continue to share with me matters of importance.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis
Member of Congress

 

If it goes bang,

THEY WANT IT BANNED

Tell that to all your bolt action and pump action shotgun hunting buddies

Wow. Ron Paul is awesome. Every piece of legislation he's got out there I agree with.

Quoted: I finally received a reply from my Congressman. Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue. As you may know, H.R. 1022, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), would reinstate for ten years certain repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and ammunition feeding devices. It revises and expands the definition of prohibited semiautomatic assault weapons and accessories. Furthermore, it prohibits the transfer of any such device unless the transfer is mediated through a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency. This legislation is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this particular committee, please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this bill come before the full House for a vote. Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you will continue to share with me matters of importance. Sincerely, Tom Davis Member of Congress

That's a response?

Quoted: Quoted: I finally received a reply from my Congressman. Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue. As you may know, H.R. 1022, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), would reinstate for ten years certain repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and ammunition feeding devices. It revises and expands the definition of prohibited semiautomatic assault weapons and accessories. Furthermore, it prohibits the transfer of any such device unless the transfer is mediated through a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency. This legislation is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this particular committee, please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this bill come before the full House for a vote. Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you will continue to share with me matters of importance. Sincerely, Tom Davis Member of Congress   That's a response?

Quoted: Quoted: I finally received a reply from my Congressman. Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue. As you may know, H.R. 1022, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), would reinstate for ten years certain repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and ammunition feeding devices. It revises and expands the definition of prohibited semiautomatic assault weapons and accessories. Furthermore, it prohibits the transfer of any such device unless the transfer is mediated through a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency. This legislation is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this particular committee, please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this bill come before the full House for a vote. Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you will continue to share with me matters of importance. Sincerely, Tom Davis Member of Congress   That's a response?

sounds like a response that says, screw you, I've voting for it anyways

Quoted: Quoted: I finally received a reply from my Congressman. Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue. As you may know, H.R. 1022, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), would reinstate for ten years certain repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and ammunition feeding devices. It revises and expands the definition of prohibited semiautomatic assault weapons and accessories. Furthermore, it prohibits the transfer of any such device unless the transfer is mediated through a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency. This legislation is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this particular committee, please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this bill come before the full House for a vote. Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you will continue to share with me matters of importance. Sincerely, Tom Davis Member of Congress   That's a response?

Yep, it's the response of someone without a spine.  It appears that he has refused to take a stand one way or another, or is not telling you what his stand is for fear of losing your support.  

What is it about the water of DC that brings on instant osteoperosis for liberals and RINOs?  I mean, no backbone at all....

Quoted: I finally received a reply from my Congressman. Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue. As you may know, H.R. 1022, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), would reinstate for ten years certain repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and ammunition feeding devices. It revises and expands the definition of prohibited semiautomatic assault weapons and accessories. Furthermore, it prohibits the transfer of any such device unless the transfer is mediated through a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency. This legislation is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this particular committee, please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this bill come before the full House for a vote. Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you will continue to share with me matters of importance. Sincerely, Tom Davis Member of Congress

kinda vague  

Quoted: I finally received a reply from my Congressman. Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue. As you may know, H.R. 1022, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), would reinstate for ten years certain repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and ammunition feeding devices. It revises and expands the definition of prohibited semiautomatic assault weapons and accessories. Furthermore, it prohibits the transfer of any such device unless the transfer is mediated through a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency. This legislation is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this particular committee, please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this bill come before the full House for a vote. Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you will continue to share with me matters of importance. Sincerely, Tom Davis Member of Congress

Hell, he didn't have to beat around the bush, he might as well just come out in support of it...........

He is the type to look at nationwide polls and decide based on what Cali and New Yorkers want, not on what the Constitution says.

Quoted: I agree that the NRA has certainly done a poor job lately in framing the debate on the Second Amendment. Try piss poor. It's evident right on their 'About us' page: In 1986, the NRA and millions of gun owners nationwide applauded as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Which, as you know, included the machine gun ban and turned the ATF into a brute squad. Tell me again why I should support these hypocrites?

As much as I hate the MG ban , Besides that, FOPA was good law. It was partially driven by stories of ATF abuses from before it's enacting. It also got rid of the need to sign for ammo ( who remembers that) and Give us the Interstate protection, Which I appreciate every time i drive through chicago (Morton Grove) with a handgun locked in the trunk.

It was partially driven by stories of ATF abuses from before it's enacting.

Yeah it should've abolished the ATF, not legitimized them.

It will not get passed, even if it makes it out of committee.

Quoted: Seems like mostly Commiefornia and Massachusetts people on this bill. Leave the rest of the country alone!!!!

You do realize that since states like CA have far more representatives, more reps from that state will be on any particular bill? We have 53 districts, that's 53 reps. Eight of them are cosponsers of this bill. 8/53 = 15% of our reps have cosponsored this bill. That's 15% of CA's voting power on this Bill.

MA has ten reps, five of them cosponsering this bill. That's 50% of MA's voting power on this bill. If you're looking for someplace to blame, blame MA and not CA.  

What does NY have nowadays rep wise? Last time I checked it was 29 reps. Five of them have cosponsered this bill; that's 17%.

AND HERE's THE BEST PART: Arizona has eight reps, two of them on this bill. That's 25%, more than NY and CA!

In summary:

MA is leading the way with 50% of its voting power on this bill.

AZ comes in with 25% of its voting power on this bill.

NY comes in with 17%.

CA comes in with 15%.

CA has 19 Republican Congressmen/women. I happen to live in one of those Republican districts. We oppose the AWB just as much as you do. Hell, your congressperson may not be a Republican. I'd bet some of you in Texas are under a Democrat! And (gasp), are we Californians constantly attacking you? No. Don't attack us.

Don't hold the Republicans here responsible for the Democrat's actions. Unlike you "antburners", we're actually fighting them instead of throwing insults at those who fight the hardest to support our 2A rights.

The battleground for the 2A is in CA, MA, and NY. You should be supporting your fellow firearms owners here, not insulting them. If we lose the battles in CA, MA, and NY, you will soon feel the affects also.

Quoted: It will not get passed, even if it makes it out of committee.

I hope you're right. The AWB here sucks already, and that one would be worse!

In CA, we are hard at work with the NRA to help get out ban struck down. The whole off list lower thing has really helped (reconfigured, off list AR's, AK's, etc. coming in in the thousands)

In CA, we are hard at work with the NRA to help get our ban struck down.

It should be a lot easier now that they've struck down DC's handgun ban as unconstitutional.

Quoted: Quoted: I finally received a reply from my Congressman. Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue. As you may know, H.R. 1022, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), would reinstate for ten years certain repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and ammunition feeding devices. It revises and expands the definition of prohibited semiautomatic assault weapons and accessories. Furthermore, it prohibits the transfer of any such device unless the transfer is mediated through a licensed dealer or law enforcement agency. This legislation is currently under consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. While I am not a member of this particular committee, please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should this bill come before the full House for a vote. Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you will continue to share with me matters of importance. Sincerely, Tom Davis Member of Congress   Hell, he didn't have to beat around the bush, he might as well just come out in support of it........... He is the type to look at nationwide polls and decide based on what Cali and New Yorkers want, not on what the Constitution says.

If it weren't for the potential ill effect, it would be fun to shoot them a letter in SUPPORT of the bill to see if you get back a "Darn right I'm voting for it!" response...

Quoted: In CA, we are hard at work with the NRA to help get our ban struck down. It should be a lot easier now that they've struck down DC's handgun ban as unconstitutional.

I really hope so. At the last election, we had a candidate for AG who was for taking down the AWB, but he voiced that before the election and of course the sheeple wouldn't vote for him then. He should've kept his mouth shut until he got elected, then he could take down the ban .

I hate to say it, but the only way this is going to get settled is w/ a SC Ruling.

In order to get there, it will take one of us to defy the law, get hammered, and take it to the top.  That sucks.  Not to mention, the sheeple could care less if we own firearms b/c they don't and it doesn't affect them, except in their warped liberal, soccer mom world that says if a gun is anywhere nearby, it will kill a kid.

Since the VA shootings yesterday, this bill now has 3 more supporters... somebody's pushing propaganda, in spite of the fact that the gunman was using two pistols (a .22 and 9mm) that did not appear to even have LC Mags.

Now here is a response from my Congressman.  Too bad they aren't all like that. Check out HR 297. I didn't even know about that one.

April 16, 2007







Dear Doug:



Thank you for contacting me regarding the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I appreciate your deep concern about an issue so important to Idahoans and all Americans.



I took my oath of office to serve as your Congressman in early January. By that oath I affirmed my commitment to uphold the Constitution of the United States. My oath was a solemn one, which means that your Second Amendment rights are a matter of great seriousness to me.



While many have argued that the right to keep and bear arms applies collectively to military operations, such a limited reading is not what our Founding Fathers intended. The United States Court of Appeals recently recognized this in its March 9, 2007, decision of Parker v. District of Columbia where it held: "The [Second] Amendment does not protect 'the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,' but rather 'the right of the people.' The [Second Amendment] protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias..therefore [the Second Amendment is] an expression of the drafters' view that the people possessed a natural right to keep and bear arms.."



Currently there are several bills affecting gun rights in Congress that raise grave concerns. One such bill is H.R. 1022, a bill to reauthorize the ban on certain semi-automatic firearms. This bill was introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) in the 110th Congress, and was referred to the Judiciary Committee where it currently is pending.



I am also concerned with gun related legislation that unnecessarily invades the privacy of Idahoans. Recently, Rep. McCarthy also introduced H.R 297, to amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1) to require federal agencies to provide, and the Attorney General to secure, any government records with information relevant to determining the eligibility of a person to receive a firearm for inclusion in NICS; (2) to require states to make available to the Attorney General certain records that would disqualify persons from acquiring a firearm; and (3) to authorize appropriations for grant programs to assist states, courts, and local governments in establishing or improving such automated record. In short, this legislation would authorize and mandate that the federal government maintain personal information on many Americans. While the safe and responsible ownership and use of a firearm is a must, maintaining and centralizing the personal information of millions of Americans in the hands of government bureaucrats is a threat to constitutionally guaranteed personal liberty.



Should either of these bills or any similar legislation come before the House of Representatives, please be assured that I will vote to protect your Second Amendment Rights.



For more information and updates on my work in Congress, please visit my website, www.sali.house.gov. It is an honor to serve as your member of Congress. Thank you again for contacting me; please feel free to continue to inform me of your views on issues important to you.







                                                                                                   Sincerely,

                                                                                                   Bill Sali
                                                                                                   Member of Congress

Up to 38 cosponsors now

Watch this carefully

Check out HR 297

It's only got 7 sponsors, it's not going anywhere anytime soon. NICS checks are useless when you're letting the psychotic roam the streets. We need to start locking up our crazy again.

Quoted: Quoted: Seems like mostly Commiefornia and Massachusetts people on this bill. Leave the rest of the country alone!!!! You do realize that since states like CA have far more representatives, more reps from that state will be on any particular bill? We have 53 districts, that's 53 reps. Eight of them are cosponsers of this bill. 8/53 = 15% of our reps have cosponsored this bill. That's 15% of CA's voting power on this Bill. MA has ten reps, five of them cosponsering this bill. That's 50% of MA's voting power on this bill. If you're looking for someplace to blame, blame MA and not CA.   What does NY have nowadays rep wise? Last time I checked it was 29 reps. Five of them have cosponsered this bill; that's 17%. AND HERE's THE BEST PART: Arizona has eight reps, two of them on this bill. That's 25%, more than NY and CA! In summary: MA is leading the way with 50% of its voting power on this bill. AZ comes in with 25% of its voting power on this bill. NY comes in with 17%. CA comes in with 15%. CA has 19 Republican Congressmen/women. I happen to live in one of those Republican districts. We oppose the AWB just as much as you do. Hell, your congressperson may not be a Republican. I'd bet some of you in Texas are under a Democrat! And (gasp), are we Californians constantly attacking you? No. Don't attack us. Don't hold the Republicans here responsible for the Democrat's actions. Unlike you "antburners", we're actually fighting them instead of throwing insults at those who fight the hardest to support our 2A rights. The battleground for the 2A is in CA, MA, and NY. You should be supporting your fellow firearms owners here, not insulting them. If we lose the battles in CA, MA, and NY, you will soon feel the affects also.

Good arguments.