Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/6/2004 6:50:18 AM EST
I am confused over the potential impact of 2 bills currently in congress (same bill really, 1 is in the House and 1 is in the Senate):

These bills would redefine any rifle with a detachable magazine and one other feature (folding/tele stock, threaded barrel, pistol grip, forward grip, or barrel shroud) as an assault weapon. This would classify any post-ban AR or AK clones as banned assault rifles.


These bills would also alter the "Grandfather Clause" - USC Title 18 Section 922(v). Currently, the Grandfather Clause reads:
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.


HR2038 would change the Grandfather Clause to read as follows:

(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2)

(A)Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law as of September 13, 1994'.

(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.'.


Here is my question:

Would people be expected to relinquish the post-ban "assault weapons" that they legally owned/purchased AFTER September 13, 1994 but prior to the enactment (should it be passed) of this law?

Didn't California pass a similar law that required people to turn in their "assault rifles"?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:46:03 AM EST
In 1990, New Jersey passed what I believe was the first "Assault Weapon" ban and did not grandfather anything. One had a few months to get rid of them, make them inoperable, or register them with restrictions.
I hope these bills never make it. The (2) section doesn't make sense to me.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:47:49 PM EST
There has to be a caveat. They can't ban them outright. They can require registration, that you never leave your home with it or that you wear a bright lime green armband (that's a joke, as stupid as it is). If the options are too restrictive as to impugn on your rights you can always sue.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 7:35:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/12/2004 10:53:15 AM EST by KClapp]
You know, John Adams was quoted as stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

For the most part, this nation is neither of those things any more. You can attempt to sue, if you wish. For whatever good you may believe it will do. But there is no obligation on the part of judge and prosecution to follow rule of law or historical context. If you believe there is, then you are being extremely naive. There are many other amendments in the Bill of Rights being ignored or twisted to subvert them to the politcally correct, morally bankrupt, liberal political philosophy which dominates the Western Propaganda machine (more commonly know as the media) and the DNC (and this philosophy is encroaching on the GOP).

The Founding Fathers gave you the 2nd Amendment to afford you the ability to protect your rights under the Constitution. Not so you could go hunting or protect your family, person, or property from criminal intent. It was given to you to protect your and yours from the powermongers who would misuse their authority, as indicated by Adams quote above.

I'm no anarchist, just a retired soldier who spent his service protecting that same Constitution and the people it was designed to govern. Now I have come to understand that the vast majority of those folks don't give a hoot about their responsibilty as citizens and are willing to abandon their protection under the Constitution just to be "safe and secure".

This prevailing attitude among Americans has made the Constitution an anachronism. That's why you see the crap going on in within the judiciary that you do and why you see the moronic laws being enacted and signed within the legislative and executive branches. Your Constitutional rights are only as good as your willingness to stand up and risk all for them. The most disturbing and disheartening fact is, most Americans are not willing to sacrifice anything for their rights. They just want to be left alone.

May God bless America. We most certainly need it.

Karl
Top Top