Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 2/24/2007 5:44:24 AM EST
Moving with the great speed of 1,000 giant sloths, NRA-ILA put out an alert on H.R. 1022 yesterday.

NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 14, No. 8 02/23/07

States with updates this issue: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

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.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:46:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 5:52:18 AM EST by Bloencustoms]
Well, I'm glad someone took the time to put it in plain language. That may also have somehting to do with why it took so long. They had to read over the old ban, and the new bill and tranlate for us non-lawyers.

Edited to make post less dumb.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:57:39 AM EST
At least they finally said something!
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:18:36 AM EST
Yes, that was kind of unfair of me. It took me until February 23, 2007 to dig up the old legislation, figure out how the bill amended it and then figure out what it did - and I still needed help from actual lawyers to do it.

One thing that puzzles me though is that all of the people I talked to agreed there WAS a sunset clause in this and the NRA-ILA seems to have reached the conclusion that I first reached (no sunset clause).
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:24:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 10:12:35 AM EST
Wait, I thought the NRA wanted assault weapons banned?

After all, they're all a bunch of fudds, right?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 10:13:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By ElCamino:
Wait, I thought the NRA wanted assault weapons banned?

After all, they're all a bunch of fudds, right?

I thought the same.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:21:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Moving with the great speed of 1,000 giant sloths, NRA-ILA put out an alert on H.R. 1022 yesterday.

The NRA compiles a list of federal/state alerts and issues them on a weekly (usually on Fridays) basis. The bill was only recently introduced, hasn't even been assigned to a sub-committee yet, has no sponsors as yet and the House Judiciary Committee was in recess last week. In addition the bill is so poorly written and convoluted it took time to analyze what the actual implications of the legislation are. Misspeaking on the ramifications of the bill would not be helpful at this early stage of the legislative process.

If we are to be successful in fighting this legislation it's imperative that ALL the RKBA organizations and their associated members stand united on the issues. Eating our own at every opportunity will be counter productive to defeating this bill.
Top Top