Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/12/2004 8:02:44 AM EST
This just in from www.awbansunset.com.

A recent news story at thehill.com quoted Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) as being confident there were enough votes in the House to pass a ban renewal if it came to the floor, and indicated he was considering filing a discharge petition (which requires the support of a simple majority of House members) to force a vote on the bill.

You can view the article here:

www.thehill.com/news/051204/nra.aspx

While he might be overly optimistic on how the ban would fare in the House, we would be foolish to ignore the possibility of Republican leadership caving on this issue.

We must make it absolutely clear that, while many of us are willing to set aside our disappointment in the fact that Bush has expressed support for renewing the ban in the past, we WILL NOT vote to reelect him if the ban is actually signed into law. Plus, House leadership needs to be reminded of how they gained control in 1994, widely acknowledged as being a direct result of the original ban being passed.

In addition, you can point out the following:

· The government-funded study (conducted under the Clinton administration) on the effects of the ban found no detectable reduction in crime that could be attributed to the ban, as these guns were only rarely used in crime even before the ban.

· The firearms restricted by this ban are nearly identical to non-banned guns, differing only by "minor cosmetic changes" (a catch-phrase used by many anti-gun organizations in the context of complaining about how manufacturers changed their products to comply with the law). They do not fire any faster, nor are they any more powerful than non-banned guns, despite their menacing looks and scary-sounding names.

· The radically anti-gun Violence Policy Center freely admits the expiration of the ban will have no adverse effects, calling the ban "a joke."

Let us send a clear message of how strongly we feel about this issue. Take a few moments to contact the following people, and POLITELY make your opinion known. If possible, please call, as well as fax and mail a letter.

Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2976
Fax: (202) 225-0697

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
H-107 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4000
Fax: (202) 225-5117

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt
H-329 The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-0197

House Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox
2402 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5611
Fax: (202) 225-9177

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone: 202-456-1111
Fax: 202-456-2461

In addition, contact your own representative, and urge him/her to not support a discharge petition on a bill to renew the ban on so-called "assault weapons." You can find the contact information for you representative by entering your zip code on this page:

www.house.gov/


Please send this to anyone you know who shares your view on this issue.

www.awbansunset.com
www.awbansunset.com/forums
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:12:03 AM EST
Any politician who supports firearms bans for Americans has ink on their hands, and will not receive my vote. John Warner, should he run again, will not be receiving my vote.

Should such a ban be supported by the duck/deer/skeet crowd. I will inform the VPC that shotguns dance right through the 'shotgun loophole'. That is, machine guns are heavily regulated, but shotguns can be purchased at Walmart. A machine gun is defined as a gun that can fire more than once with one pull of the trigger. A shotgun does the same thing, but merely fires multiple projectiles with one pull of the trigger. The same end, multiple projectiles, is achieved in either case ! Of course, this is a joke, but the spite in me makes it tempting.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:19:37 AM EST
What exactly is a discharge petition? Don't they have to pass the Senate anymore, the whole two house agreement system? I read through the article, and while it mentioned a little about the petition that the asshat Castle is trying to propose, I don't see how it can just be done without the approval of the Senate or the President. In either case, letters are going out once more.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:31:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Ghost-Shooter:
What exactly is a discharge petition? Don't they have to pass the Senate anymore, the whole two house agreement system? I read through the article, and while it mentioned a little about the petition that the asshat Castle is trying to propose, I don't see how it can just be done without the approval of the Senate or the President. In either case, letters are going out once more.



In the House, each bill submitted to the House is either voted on, or sent to comittee. Once in comittee, the bill cannot be voted on until it is either reported on by the comittee, or discharged by majority vote.

It would still have to pass the House and Senate. As we found earlier this year, the votes are there in the Senate for renewal.
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:45:02 AM EST
How about a Candle Light Vigil?
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 8:53:28 AM EST
The bill that this article is referring to is HR2038. This bill is was authored by Carolyn Mcarthy and John Conyers. This bill would outlaw just about every type of post-ban semi-auto that we all own.

Also, there is language in this bill that could potentially outlaw the OWNERSHIP of post-ban "assault rifles". I wrote the following letter to the GOA, Their response follows after my letter:

From ME:

"I am a lifetime member of the GOA, and I have a question concerning the
impact of HR2038 should it pass.

Currently the "Grandfather Clause" on the 1994 AWB [USC Title 18 Section
922(v)] 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.

But with the alterations in HR2038/S1431, the "Grandfather Clause" reads:

(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.'

My question for you is this, since the 1994 AWB, many people have purchased
"post-ban assault rifles" that would be banned by these bills. Would the new
"Grandfather Clause" make it illegal for people to possess the "post-ban"
assault rifles that have been manufactured/purchased since September 13,
1994? Would we be expected to turn in our "post-ban" rifles or face felony
charges?


I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer to this question, and I
would appreciate any assistance that you could give.

With Regards,

Stephen Pershing


--------------------------------------------

Gun Owners of America wrote:

Dear Mr. Pershing,

Thanks for your note.

Let me first make two cautionary comments: 1. We believe and hope that, with your help, we can block the extension of the semiautomatic ban. Although it will be a tough fight, we believe that the most likely outcome is than the ban will not be extended this year . 2. Were the band to be extended, the final language may differ from any of the bills currently in circulation. You cannot make any firm predictions about the outcome based on what is now in the bills.

Having said that, if we are unsuccessful(and if the language you cite were passed verbatim)all banned semiautomatics currently possessed MIGHT be grandfathered by the language in subparagraph (2) (B), so long as (1) they were possessed on the effective date of the extension, and (2) their possession did not run afoul of any other provision of law.

We assume, however , that BATF would attempt to argue that subsection 922 (v) (as contained in the 1994 Act) is a different subsection from subsection 922(v) (as contained in the extension) and that the post-1994 firearms are therefore NOT otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.

We believe it is dangerous to assume that either (1) paragraph (2) (B) would be signed into law in its current form, or (2) Batf would be unsuccessful in pursuing its efforts to interpret the subparagraph narrowly.

For this reason, we will continue to fight any legislation, and hope you will, as well.

--
Sincerely,


Frank Pejack
Public Liaison, Gun Owners of America

----------------------------------------------

So while it is not certain, there is a POSSIBILITY that the bill being considered by the House of Representitives COULD result in limited firearm confiscation.

Write your Representitives, write your Senators, and write the President!!

Top Top