Alrighty folks - we're assuredly on the assault now.

We all need to start with the letters, the calls, the visits and more, and get our elected officials backing Representative Ron Paul of Texas, and his bill, H.R.1703.

Here's the link:  thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1703:

Here's the text:

Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) HR 1703 IH 109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1703 To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 19, 2005 Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. 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 `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005'. SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL HARASSMENT PERIOD. Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted. SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION. (a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended-- (1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'; and (2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes'. (b) Section 921(a)(4)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'. (c) Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes'. (d) Section 921(a)(17)(C) of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,'. (e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community'. (f) Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'. (g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and'. (h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B)'. (i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'. (j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'. (k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and (b)(3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes' and inserting `lawful purposes'. SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.

Time to get to work!!

(Thanks to Buzz407 for the heads-up on this!)

(Mods:  Any way to get this pinned for a couple of days?)

tag for home

+1, bump, w00t!

Frickin A!

A tack on the front page would be great.

This deserves a tack.

It'll get killed off most assuredly, but it may the light at the end of the tunnel to motivate people to contact their reps!

Tack-a-roo

Writing the Congresscritters, but, sadly, it'll never see the light of day, and if it did, Bush wouldn't sign it.

SG

When do we find out if this is a go or no
?

We should all write to our congressmen.

Quoted: When do we find out if this is a go or no ?

You can watch status here:

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR01703:@@@X

Currently, it's still in two committees.

tag.

Lets do this

Would this free up importation of Russian and Chinese arms or is that someone some how seperate?

Needs a sticky

Quoted: Would this free up importation of Russian and Chinese arms or is that someone seperate?

I think you are correct

Quoted: Needs a sticky

Already WAS, in a different thread, for most of last week.

Unfortunately, it seems nobody READS the tacked threads.

Quoted: Would this free up importation of Russian and Chinese arms or is that someone some how seperate?

We were discussing this earlier.

This doesn't appear to repeal any Executive Orders - if there are EO's out there banning imports from Russia and China, then this will have nothing to do with it.

Now, on the other hand, this WILL allow the import of rifles such as the SIG 55x, HK9x and other HK stuff (if anyone still builds them), FN stuff, and a whole lot more (unless that's banned by an EO I don't know about?).

Someone who knows more should chime in with the Executive Order information.

"Import guns, not illegals"

My new bumper sticker

Quoted: "Import guns, not illegals" My new bumper sticker

i like that

Seny mail(both Kinds) but my rep is a DEM! DAMN!

attack! Attack! ATTACK!

Quoted: Writing the Congresscritters, but, sadly, it'll never see the light of day, and if it did, Bush wouldn't sign it. SG

Really?  How do you know whether he would or would not sign it?

tag for further action.

weird...
Wonder when this was introduced or written up.


Give me a list on Who I must call/wright to and I will do it.

My letter to the supreme court was sent and I'm tired of waiting for a reply... I think this may be it, Oh well.

Give me a list on who to wright letters to from Illinois.
Maybe this will Impeach Mayor (jackass) Daily.

Bump

tag for when I'm not tired

Can we get a summary? I recognise that is removes the "sporting purposes" crap, but didn't understand much else.

tag

I just emaild my congressman, and the snail mail will be on the way tommorow. Come on guys, lets start building some preasure.

I swear to god I will bump this every day for the next year if I have to....

this can be a good thing

BTT

bump

must.....keep....on...first....page..

Quoted: This deserves a tack.

Yes it does.

We'll see how far it gets, but it would benefit those overseas firearms makers.

more with the bumping.

Bumped again

Sooo tagged

Alright!

.

tack it already guy come one

tagged, but chances are no one will take part in it. I'll go ahead and write the critters. I always do......

BTT, tag, tack, and writing my letters.

That would be a first - ok, a second time that something taken away was given back.  Yes, those are the clauses that keep imports out.  However, other bans need only a signature.  Anything Norinco is currently banned as well as about any "parts" from Russia.  With our luck, they'd pass this thing then Bush would tell every country wanting to import that if they want any more Aid, they won't do it....seems to be how it works.....

But, you never know.  I was really surprised they let the '94 AWB expire.  Now, what exactly was it in '86 that halted new transferable  MG production :)

W is a politician, he could extract a lot of support or other advantages from other countries for the USA in return for the dollars we'd spend there by opening us up to firearm markets again.  

Plus if we could get surplus weapons from conflict zones it would boost the economy of wherever we're trying to fix and also drain out weapons that would otherwise be used for insurgency or crime.  Sell them here and they're just gonna sit in our safes and go play in an organized fashion every few weekend.  

win-win for everybody but whining liberals.  

Tagged, this is good enough to send snail mail on.

Will this kill 922r (the US parts thing)?


Samuel

Quoted: Will this kill 922r (the US parts thing)?

Essentially.

It removes the "Sporting Purposes" Clause.

Currently, the way this law is interpreted is that the BATFE does not allow assembly if the rifle is not deemed "importable".  We get around this by putting enough US-made parts into the rifle to remove it from the purview of 922(r) or 925(d)(3) - with enough US-made parts in it, it's a domestic-made rifle, not a foriegn-made rifle.  These laws do not apply to US-made rifles or shotguns.

The rifle is not importable because the BATFE does not feel that it meets the Sporting Purposes Clause - i.e. the rifle or shotgun is "not particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes."

The Sporting Purposes clause directly lies in 18 USC 925(d)(3).

By removing that particular clause from all of these sections of US Code, the BATFE has no backing to ban the import of semiautomatic rifles - the new law would read that the Attorney General SHALL (love that word, shall) authorize firearms or ammunition for importation that is not one of the following:

Short Barrel Shotguns (or shotguns under 26")
Short Barrel Rifles (or rifles under 26")
AOW's
Machineguns
Silencers
Destructive Devices

Essentially, if it's under the purview of the NFA, it's still not importable (unless you're an SOT).

922(r) would still prohibit assembly of a semiautomatic rifle or semiautomatic shotgun that is not importable under 925(d)(3).

Since the only things that are not importable are NFA devices, you would be allowed to assemble almost anything you wanted, provided it was semiautomatic.

Now, it's worth noting that this bill also changes the definition of Destructive Device.

Specifically, this:

(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes;

Changes to this:

(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a politician - I can't claim to provide fully accurate interpretations of the law, but this appears that it would remove certain shotguns from the purview of the NFA, no longer classifying them as Destructive Devices.  HELLO STRIKER, STREET SWEEPER AND USAS-12!

Essentially, the CURRENT law says that the Secretary is the ruling body on which shotguns are not destructive devices.  Under this law, at any point in time, the Secretary can say that virtually any semiauto shotgun or shotgun shell imported is not suitable for sporting purposes, and make it a Destructive Device.

The bill removes this ability, and in doing so, I would imagine removes any semiautomatic shotgun previously declared a Destructive Device from that classification - the new law would be very clear - "EXCEPT A SHOTGUN OR SHOTGUN SHELL".

This also appears to be backed up in the modification of 18 USC 921(a)(4)

for the love of happyness! we'd get the striker and USAS-12 again?????   *cries tears of utter joy*

bump

Heck this goes beyond that!  We could get 8 gauges and even larger "shotguns" back, couldn't we?

hmmmmm

Quoted: Heck this goes beyond that!  We could get 8 gauges and even larger "shotguns" back, couldn't we? hmmmmm

It sure seems so.

(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell