Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/12/2003 9:19:17 AM EDT
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h2038ih.txt.pdf Unless I am reading this wrong, the new Assault Weapons Ban bill introduced 8 May 2003 would make Garands, M1As, AR-15s and any other rifles that had ever been used by the military illegal. Under the new definition for Assault Weapon it adds, (L) "A semi-automatic rifle originally designed for military or law-enforcement use, or a firearms based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particulary suitable for sporting purposes as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, that 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 particulary suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particulary suitable for sporting purposes soley because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." The anti-gunners are trying to jerk the noose tight around our necks. If you value your freedom and constitutional rights you had better fight like hell now. Start making your opinions known, contact your congressmen and spread the word.
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 9:26:06 AM EDT
[url]http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h2038ih.txt.pdf [/url] Yes, if the Attorney General decides it "is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes". The McCarthy bill would give the AG of the USA the same kind of arbitrary power that the California AG has to decide something is an "assault weapon". Although a consitutional challenge of that power failed in Cali, it looks to me like the bill would give the Executive Branch explicit powers to write law, essentially raising regulations to the level of statutes. To me that looks like a big Constitutional no-no. The bill is probably destined to die in committee, but keep up the pressure against it.
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 9:27:29 AM EDT
This would never make it out of committee. It actually helps us quite a bit, as many self proclaimed gun guys actually don't like sport utility rifles, and are secretly happy when they are effected by legislation. Now that they see that their beloved "Gee-Rand" and "Car-byne" are on the list, perhaps they will change their tune. Nobody on this site needs to be convinced about becoming politically active. You should post this on RemChester. com or huntin'dawg. com or skeet&greet, com.
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 9:29:23 AM EDT
Welcome to Kalifornia!
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 10:42:31 AM EDT
So if the bill passes does that mean that the government is going to beat down my door to confiscate my guns?
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 10:46:59 AM EDT
of course, just b/c the bill passes doesn't mean that it will be sustained against challenge. Gee whiz, why don't they give Herr Ashcroft discretionary authority to make illegal whatever he deems necessary in the interests of the Federal Government.
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 10:51:29 AM EDT
For some reason, I worry more about 08 and this bill.
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 10:55:29 AM EDT
This bill may or may not pass. AWB will not sunset without something else taking its place. E-mail your rep.
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 11:08:31 AM EDT
Woo hoo! I sent in that part about banning semi-autos based upon military pattern designs! It proves that senators and reps do read letters sent to them!
Link Posted: 6/12/2003 11:17:41 AM EDT
Top Top