Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/18/2004 2:51:28 AM EST
IANAP , but here's my idea:

Stike 18 U.S.C. 922(o) in it's entirety

Could we persuade some congressman to insert something like that into some must-pass bill, one of the 200-page ones nobody ever reads?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 2:53:29 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 2:57:27 AM EST
Theoretically? Its possible.
Realistically? We might be able to if we get an absolute landslide of Republican Senators and Reps and W wins again.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:06:23 AM EST
Hi Kharn!

Didn't expect to meet you here!

Anyways, do you think there could be a Republican Senator nice enough to tack it on to, say, a spending bill, like they did with the limits on NICS last year?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:06:45 AM EST
Today I just realized something: almost all the news media mis-reported the AWB as banning full-auto weapons. And it still expired. So maybe there is hope?!?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:09:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 3:09:59 AM EST by Kharn]
Microbalrog:
Anything's possible, we just need to find a Senator with enough gumption to do it and withstand the media onslaught without folding.
What took you so long to find this place?

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:28:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:37:41 AM EST


Anything's possible, we just need to find a Senator with enough gumption to do it and withstand the media onslaught without folding.




Here are some people who could help:

In Congress:

Ron Paul (R-TX)

In Senate:

Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Lisa Murkowsky (R-AK)
Zell Miller (D-GA)
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:44:26 AM EST
how about we repeal every violation of the constitution while we're at it!?!?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:49:37 AM EST
'Sup Balrog? Haven't seen you on THR in a while that I can remember.

Theoretically, it could work, but the problem is, a bill must be read in its entirety as part of the procedure. Plus, if it's put in as an amendment, not in the original bill, attention is immediately drawn to it. Consider, also, how familiar the gun-grabbing harpies are with what 18USC922 is. The AWB modified it.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:02:16 AM EST

Today I just realized something: almost all the news media mis-reported the AWB as banning full-auto weapons. And it still expired. So maybe there is hope?!?


Exactly my feeling.

As someone (not me) said on THR: 'C'mon, what is the Brady crowd going to do? Whine 'No, really, they are real machineguns this time around?'.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:03:55 AM EST

'Sup Balrog? Haven't seen you on THR in a while that I can remember.


I'm banned from THR



Theoretically, it could work, but the problem is, a bill must be read in its entirety as part of the procedure.



And how many Congressmen read the Patriot Act?


Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:12:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By MicroBalrog:

'Sup Balrog? Haven't seen you on THR in a while that I can remember.


I'm banned from THR



Really? Why?





Theoretically, it could work, but the problem is, a bill must be read in its entirety as part of the procedure.



And how many Congressmen read the Patriot Act?





I'unno if they listened, but one of the congressmen (secretary? Minority whip? Not sure here) has to read the bill aloud in its entirety. Unless they changed that.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:28:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
How about a totally pro-gun President who just doesn't give a shit, and promises a veto of EVERYTHING that Congress passes until all of 18 USC 921 and 922 are repealed?

I could be that President. Vote for me!

CJ



I'll pencil in CMJohnson.. I hope they can figure out its you....
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:58:23 AM EST
IMO, the easiest way to deal with in the short run is for the appropriate cabinet officer (I think it's the AG now) to declare that "under the authority of the United States" in the Lautenburg Amendment (the '86 MGB) means "produced by a manufacturer licensed by the United States." End of ban, end of trouble, nothing the reds in congress can do about it except try to pass a new and explicit ban.

The other interesting thing is that at least one federal district court has overturned the MGB, based on a lack of congressional authority to ban weapons. It never went anywhere because the gov't didn't appeal the ruling. The basic theory was that the NFA was passed based solely on Congress's taxing authority, and the ban is (obviously) directly opposed to a revenue scheme based on transfer taxes, and there is no other Constitutional authority for banning guns.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:52:12 AM EST

Really? Why?


For 'being generally annoying', I presume. :)
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:04:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By MicroBalrog:
IANAP , but here's my idea:

Strike 18 U.S.C. 922(o) in it's entirety

Could we persuade some congressman to insert something like that into some must-pass bill, one of the 200-page ones nobody ever reads?



I LIKE IT!!!
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:53:48 AM EST
I just wrote to Rep. Musgrave about it. I suggest you do, too.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:58:21 AM EST
This really is our best chance, though no one has the stones to do it, I'm sure.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:02:21 AM EST
It can't be attached to a appropriations bill.

That would be against procedure.

But a germain legislation bill, sure.

They almost were going to try that with the AWB.

CRC
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:02:58 AM EST
The same thing could be done to eliminate "silencers" from the NFA.

CRC
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:17:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 7:25:24 AM EST by shaggy]
Never happen - its a pipe dream. I wish it were otherwise, but you're kidding yourself if you think you'll ever convince more than 1-2 senators or congressmen to sign on to something like that. It would be political suicide. Besides, if by some stroke of divine intervention it ever got anywhere, I'm sure it would only be at the expense of an adjustment in the transfer tax to a level that would be cost prohibitive to most people. Can you afford a $10,000 making or transfer tax on each one? How about $20,000? Don't be so naive as to think you'll slip something like that past some of the hardcore antis in Congress and the Senate. If we knew about it, they would too (do you think they don't keep tabs on the pro-gun movement and pro-gun legislation?). They'd either make such a public issue it would be dead before it got tothe floor or they'd make it so bad even we wouldn't want it to pass.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:20:18 AM EST


----- Original Message -----
From: Boris Karpa
To: rep.musgrave@mail.house.gov
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:36 PM
Subject: 1986 FOPA


Dear Mr. Musgrave!
Is it possible for you and your colleagues to start a bill (or, probably better, a hidden clause in some 'must pass' legislation) to repeal 922(o), aka the machinegun clause of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act?
I am sure it would be an easy thing to pass - the law is proven to have had zero positive effect on crime, and even ATF representatives have testified in Congress to that end.
Awaiting yor response,
Sincerely Yours,
Boris Karpa



Can you Americans write similar letters too?
His e-mail is rep.musgrave@mail.house.gov and he leads the Congressional 2nd Amendment Caucus.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:22:48 AM EST
It's worth a shot...
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:27:01 AM EST
*points at Musgrave's e-mail address*

Shoot, then. :)
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:28:09 AM EST
Done... X
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:36:03 AM EST
Way to go.hug.gif
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:42:15 AM EST
The best defense is a good offense. E-mail sent.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 8:01:43 AM EST
Great. Anybody else?
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 8:30:14 AM EST

REP. MUSGRAVE IS A WOMAN!

STOP WRITING MR. IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY

DO *FIVE SECONDS* OF RESEARCH /PLEASE/

SO THE REST OF US DON'T LOOK LIKE MORONS

THANK YOU

wwwc.house.gov/musgrave/



Originally Posted By MicroBalrog:


----- Original Message -----
From: Boris Karpa
To: rep.musgrave@mail.house.gov
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:36 PM
Subject: 1986 FOPA


Dear Mr. Musgrave!
Is it possible for you and your colleagues to start a bill (or, probably better, a hidden clause in some 'must pass' legislation) to repeal 922(o), aka the machinegun clause of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act?
I am sure it would be an easy thing to pass - the law is proven to have had zero positive effect on crime, and even ATF representatives have testified in Congress to that end.
Awaiting yor response,
Sincerely Yours,
Boris Karpa



Can you Americans write similar letters too?
His e-mail is rep.musgrave@mail.house.gov and he leads the Congressional 2nd Amendment Caucus.

Link Posted: 9/18/2004 8:34:57 AM EST
Email sent to MRS. Musgrave...
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 8:59:33 AM EST
I doubt it, but we were doubting the AWB sunset too
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 10:44:26 AM EST
superdav, exactly my feeling.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 11:49:10 AM EST
b
u
m
p
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:26:48 PM EST
The best way to get rid of any gun law is to get rid of the "sporting purpose test".
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:26:38 AM EST
One of my posts from AWBanSunset.com:




Originally posted by RedStapler
I've learned from the few real estate transactions that I've been involved in that, in a sphere where negotiation is expected, people do not understand a set price. If you want to sell a house for $100,000, you don't put it on the market for $100,000. You put it on the market for $105,000. If the buyer thinks it is worth $100,000, they don't offer $100,000, they offer $95,000.

So I suggest that we go on the offensive in order to draw the line at a more comfortable spot. I say we try to get 18 U.S.C. 922(o) -- the 1986 law -- repealed. This would allow new machine guns to be added to the civilian registry, thus lowering the price of machine guns and making it possible for normal Americans (not just the filthy rich) to afford them. You would still have to go through all the hoops with BATF (1934 NFA).

18 U.S.C. 922(o) says:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to -
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect



I *totally* agree. I honestly think that it would be easier to kill this clause than the sporting purpose '89 order. Here's why: killing a law is a lot harder than amending one. We should amend the MG ban by adding:


922(o)(2)(C) a transfer to an individual holding a valid Federal Firearms License.



We can have our congresscritters spin this having to do with commerence or trade or something. This could slip in to almost any legislation and fall under the radar. Then, all you have to do is get a C&R FFL and away we go.

Opinions?

BoB



Let me know what you guys think.

BoB
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:37:01 PM EST
Why not just 'strike 922 (o) in it's entirety'?'
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 2:33:26 AM EST
whats wrong with going with the original (always below, for your convience) vvvvvvvv
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 2:55:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By MicroBalrog:
Why not just 'strike 922 (o) in it's entirety'?'



Because it is easier to take a nibble than it is to bite the whole thing off. That is how we got all these guns laws to begin with, slowly over time taking piece by piece.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 12:36:51 PM EST
SWIRE 922(o) is a very small piece of it. Look it up. :)
Top Top