Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/30/2006 9:38:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 9:57:11 AM EDT by CRC]


Support H.R. 5005, The "Firearms Corrections And Improvements Act"



On March 16, Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) introduced H.R. 5005, the “Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act,” which would make a variety of technical changes to federal firearm laws. The bill would roll back unnecessary restrictions, correct errors, and codify longstanding congressional policies in the arena of firearms laws.

Among its provisions, H.R. 5005 would: permanently ban taxes or “user fees” on background checks by the federal instant check system--fees that Congress has prohibited in annual appropriations riders since 1998; permanently ban creation of a centralized electronic index of dealers’ records--a threat to gun owners’ privacy that Congress has barred through appropriations riders for a decade; codify limits on disclosure of trace records--which Congress has already limited through a series of appropriations riders over the past few years, out of concern for gun owners’ privacy and the confidentiality of law enforcement records; and repeal of obsolete language from the Brady Act’s “interim” waiting period provisions, that expired in 1998.

On March 28, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security will hold a Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5005, and the third Oversight Hearing of The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

Gun-ban proponent, and Violence Policy Center (VPC) staffer, Kristen Rand, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R), will testify at the hearings. Bloomberg, in his continuing quest to inflict New York City-style gun laws on the rest of the nation, will be testifying against H.R. 5005. Rand, whose organization has long called for a total ban on handgun ownership by law-abiding Americans, will testify, no doubt, in support of BATFE.

Those interested in watching the hearing online may do so at http://judiciary.house.gov/schedule.aspx. The hearing is scheduled to begin at approximately 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 28.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121, and urge him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 5005, the “Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act!”

­

To make technical changes to Federal firearms laws and for other purposes.


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 `Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act'.

SEC. 2. CORRECTION OF NONSUBSTANTIVE ERROR IN AGE LIMIT PROVISION.

Section 922(b)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe has not attained 18 years of age, and, if the firearm is other than a shotgun or rifle, or the ammunition is for a firearm other than a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe has not attained 21 years of age;'.

SEC. 3. POSSESSION AND TRANSFER OF MACHINEGUNS FOR INDUSTRY TESTING AND SECURITY CONTRACTING.

(a) Machineguns for Federal Contractors- Section 922(a)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `except' and all that follows and inserting `except--

`(A) as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; or

`(B) to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to such services;'.

(b) Sale or Delivery of Machineguns to Federal Contractors- Section 922(b) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `Paragraphs (2) and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to a sale or delivery to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services.'.

(c) Post-86 Machineguns for Testing, Research and Development, Training, and Security- Section 922(o) of such title is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2)--

(A) by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (A); and

(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (E) and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:

`(B) a transfer to, or possession by, a person to comply with a contract between that person and the United States which requires the person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services;

`(C) a transfer to, or possession by, a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer solely for testing, research, design, or development of ammunition or a firearm;

`(D) a possession by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of training persons to whom a machinegun, manufactured or imported by the licensee, may be transferred as described in subparagraph (A) or (B); or'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) A person shall not transfer a machinegun to another person in the circumstances described in paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection, unless the Attorney General has notified the person that the Attorney General has determined, based on the fingerprints of such other person and on information in the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, that such other person is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law.'.

(d) Importation of Machineguns- Section 925(d) of such title is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by striking `or' at the end;

(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:

`(5) is imported or brought in for a purpose described in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of section 922(o)(2).'.

(e) Importation Under the National Firearms Act- Section 5844 of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5844) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by inserting `or' after the semicolon; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) a machinegun being imported or brought in to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires the person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services; or

`(5) a machinegun being imported or brought in by a registered importer or registered manufacturer for the purposes of training persons who acquire machineguns pursuant to paragraph (1) that were manufactured or imported by the registrant.'.

(f) National Security Services Defined- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `national security services' means any protective, defensive, or security service provided pursuant to a contract or subcontract with a department or agency of the United States.'.

(g) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.


SEC. 4. ELIMINATION OF OBSOLETE LANGUAGE ADDED BY THE BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (s); and

(2) in subsection (t), by striking `Beginning' and all that follows through `a licensed' and inserting `A licensed'.

SEC. 5. BAN ON TAX OR FEE FOR BACKGROUND CHECK BY THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

Section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(7) The Attorney General shall not charge any tax or fee for any background check conducted pursuant to this subsection.'.

SEC. 6. ELIMINATION OF WRITTEN PERMISSION REQUIREMENT FOR SUPERVISED HANDGUN USE.

Section 922(x)(3)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in clause (ii), by striking subclause (II) and inserting the following:

`(II) with respect to ranching or farming activities, target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun, as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a handgun or ammunition without the prior written consent, if the parent or legal guardian is present at all times and the juvenile acts at the direction of a parent, legal guardian, or other adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm;'; and

(2) in clause (iii), by inserting `except as provided in clause (ii)(II),' after `(iii)'.

SEC. 7. ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE MULTIPLE SALES REPORT REQUIREMENT.

Subsection 923(g)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A)--

(A) by striking `(A)'; and

(B) in the 2nd sentence, by striking `and to the department of State police' and all that follows through `took place'; and

(2) by striking subparagraph (B).

SEC. 8. BAN ON ELECTRONIC RETRIEVAL OF FIREARMS PURCHASER INFORMATION.

Subsection 923(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `The Attorney General shall not electronically retrieve information gathered pursuant to this paragraph by name or by any personal identification code.'.

SEC. 9. TRACE DISCLOSURE.

Section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8)(A) Information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to this subsection, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of this subsection, and information in the firearms trace system database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, shall not be--

`(i) disclosed to any entity, except to a Federal, State, local, or foreign law enforcement agency or a Federal, State, or local prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution, and only to the extent that the information pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency or prosecutor requesting the disclosure; or

`(ii) made available for use in any civil action or proceeding other than--

`(I) an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce this chapter; or

`(II) a review of such an action or proceeding.

`(B) The information described in subparagraph (A) shall be immune from legal process, shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, and shall not be admissible as evidence, and testimony or other evidence relying on the information shall not be admissible, in any civil action in a State or Federal court, or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to enforce this chapter, or a review of such an action or proceeding.

`(C) This subsection shall not be construed to prevent the disclosure of statistical information concerning total production, importation, and exportation by each licensed importer and licensed manufacturer.'.

SEC. 10. BARREL AND RECEIVER IMPORTATION.

(a) In General- Section 925(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `, and' and inserting a period;

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) All frames or receivers of rifles, or barrels for firearms other than handguns, if the importation is for repair or replacement purposes.'.

(b) Governmental Imports- Section 925(a)(1) of such title is amended by inserting `, barrel,' after `or importation of any firearm'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:38:58 AM EDT
What happened to your other thread?
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:39:10 AM EDT
Wanna put that in English for those of us who don't speak Politician?
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:43:08 AM EDT
Dupe of your own dupe?
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:44:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Wanna put that in English for those of us who don't speak Politician?




+ 1

Cliff Notes please.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:44:13 AM EDT
Bottom line?
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:44:25 AM EDT
You already posted this bill, champ.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:46:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 9:47:33 AM EDT by roboman]

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Bottom line?



Bottom line is that CRC already posted a thread about this.

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=450304&page=1

Why it is he's posting the exact same damn thing again with a more sensational title I have no idea. Just his usual attention-whore trolling I guess....
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 9:47:12 AM EDT
It allows importers to possess machineguns and manufacturers to possess them too.

Link Posted: 3/30/2006 5:54:09 PM EDT
Why bitch about a double post when the fact that Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) has introduced a gun-friendly bill is a good thing. It's the BAD news we don't want to hear twice.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 5:58:04 PM EDT
I am gonna sound like an asshole here but why should "Contractors" get special privlidges when it comes to Machine Guns?

If I as a "regular" citizen can not have machine guns than the contractors should not either. If they want to have them then they need to fight for my right to own them too.

Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:09:39 PM EDT
So I am supposed to get behind a bill written to give mercenaries machine guns in our country, but not allow the American Citizen the same thing?
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:12:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dance:
So I am supposed to get behind a bill written to give mercenaries machine guns in our country, but not allow the American Citizen the same thing?



What he said.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:13:56 PM EDT
Well Arfcom could start its own security contract company :)
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:16:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 6:19:07 PM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By TheSneak:

Originally Posted By Dance:
So I am supposed to get behind a bill written to give mercenaries machine guns in our country, but not allow the American Citizen the same thing?



What he said.



+1 who knows, maybe they will use paid security to "come take em" This bill benefits in what way? I mean its good to see something give, even if so slight. I just dont find myself getting too excited.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:16:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 6:20:27 PM EDT by Badseed]

Originally Posted By ShadowCompany:
Why bitch about a double post when the fact that Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) has introduced a gun-friendly bill is a good thing. It's the BAD news we don't want to hear twice.




Exactly...

I need to invent a "stick from ass" removal system.



Raise your hand if you want to be a mod!
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:18:20 PM EDT
I would write my Congressman, but he is Lamar Smith from the Great State of Texas. I will just tell him Good Job! next time I see him.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:23:56 PM EDT
It's interesting, but if Smith really wants to help out SOTs, he should introduce a bill to repeal the ITAR fee.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:28:25 PM EDT
from how i read this, it apears that if you become certifed as an weapons instruture you could qualify to own a post ban MG, regardless I have contracted overseas in the past so i will definatly attempt to take advantage of this new legislation, for future jobs.

if this works out im glad i didnt buy that m16 for $12,000

guys do you understand that the MG ban will never be repealed and this is the only oppertuniy to get MG's into the hands of more people, ots not every day that restrictions on MG's are loosened

this is as good as its going to get guys
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:37:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By m4hk33:
from how i read this, it apears that if you become certifed as an weapons instruture you could qualify to own a post ban MG, regardless I have contracted overseas in the past so i will definatly attempt to take advantage of this new legislation, for future jobs.

if this works out im glad i didnt buy that m16 for $12,000

guys do you understand that the MG ban will never be repealed and this is the only oppertuniy to get MG's into the hands of more people, ots not every day that restrictions on MG's are loosened

this is as good as its going to get guys



If they are willing to escape the vaccum of the LaZBoy... Ordered and served on a silver platter seems to be the trend.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:37:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 6:40:01 PM EDT by NimmerMehr]
Soo the sum changes (if i did this right) of 922(o) is this.. which doesn't really do crap other than let corporate armies have MGs, Just drop 922(o) and blackwater, etc can have all the MGs they want. This smacks of "more laws = more corrupt"



(o)
(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;

(B) a transfer to, or possession by, a person to comply with a contract between that person and the United States which requires the person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to the services;

(C) a transfer to, or possession by, a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer solely for testing, research, design, or development of ammunition or a firearm;

(D) a possession by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of training persons to whom a machinegun, manufactured or imported by the licensee, may be transferred as described in subparagraph (A) or (B); or

(E) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

(3) A person shall not transfer a machinegun to another person in the circumstances described in paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection, unless the Attorney General has notified the person that the Attorney General has determined, based on the fingerprints of such other person and on information in the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, that such other person is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:37:15 PM EDT
Has anyone translated this to a shorter, nuts-n-bolts version yet ?

The way I read it, it looks like it's primarily intended to allow post-86 machineguns to be owned, transferred, etc... to individuals on Blackwaters payroll.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:37:22 PM EDT
fuck that
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:38:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Palm:
I would write my Congressman, but he is Lamar Smith from the Great State of Texas. I will just tell him Good Job! next time I see him.



Tell him the rest of us law abiding gun owners would have like to have gotten in on the action. Hell, I'd pay $500 for a transfer if I could get a recent manufacture Class III weapon. While I generally like Smith, I think this legislation stinks. Nothing personal, but I don't have a soft spot in my heart for CSC/Dyncorp, Blackwater, or any other priviliged class that would get to own an MG while a law abiding citizen like myself cannot without paying through the nose. Ever notice how there are rarely any pro-gun unintended consequences when it comes to legislation?

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:38:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 6:40:18 PM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By Dance:
So I am supposed to get behind a bill written to give mercenaries machine guns in our country, but not allow the American Citizen the same thing?




Contractors provide security for many US installations and the like. And private places like nuke plants. If you're comfortable with them being underarmed.....


The other thing some of you guys are forgetting is you NEVER EVER get everything at once. Have you learned nothing from the Clinton era successes by ANTI-gunners?
SMALL STEPS WIN THE DAY. You take what you can get now. Then you come back the next day and get MORE. One bill saying "MGs ARE LEGAL!" will not work. FIVE bills might.

Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:39:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 6:40:48 PM EDT by Spade]
*
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:41:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Dance:
So I am supposed to get behind a bill written to give mercenaries machine guns in our country, but not allow the American Citizen the same thing?




Contractors provide security for many US installations and the like. And private places like nuke plants. If you're comfortable with them being underarmed.....


The other thing some of you guys are forgetting is you NEVER EVER get everything at once. Have you learned nothing from the Clinton era successes by ANTI-gunners?
SMALL STEPS WIN THE DAY. You take what you can get now. Then you come back the next day and get MORE. One bill saying "MGs ARE LEGAL!" will not work. FIVE bills might.




I will certainly suport it, I just am not going to mess up my shorts over it.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:45:04 PM EDT
Ummm, form a corporation.

Costs you about $500. Whoop de doo.

Corp ownership is the only way to fly, as the weapons are investments.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:46:22 PM EDT
"(A) as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; or

(B) to comply with a contract between any person and the United States which requires that person to provide national security services for the United States or any training related to such services"


As far as A goes... I think it's clear to everyone here that I need a machine gun to fulfill my duties as a person under the Second Amendment. Anybody got Gonzo's phone number for the permission slip?

B-- if you have a contract for "national security services" you can have a machine gun... or training related to that service... hmmm.. I hereby offer free training to any government contractor who'll bring me a case of ammo for my shiny new machine gun

In reality I don't think that logic is going to fly.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:46:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Badseed:
Ummm, form a corporation.





Your corporation would have to be providing a national security related service or training.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:48:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dwkennedy:
"(A) as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; or


As far as A goes... I think it's clear to everyone here that I need a machine gun to fulfill my duties as a person under the Second Amendment. Anybody got Gonzo's phone number for the permission slip?




Woah, I didn't even notice A.

Section A makes it sound like the AG could say "MG's are legal for registration! Yay!" and we could all go to it.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:49:01 PM EDT
Wow, reading it again, it allows for machineguns to be transferred to individual private contractors and trainers under Section 3, provided they pass a background check, but no such mechanism exists for law enforcement officers. If you're going to let individual contractors be able to have machineguns transferred to them, why not LEOs?

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:52:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Badseed:
Ummm, form a corporation.





Your corporation would have to be providing a national security related service or training.



Are you familiar with this topic? Class3 for a corp?
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:52:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:
Contractors provide security for many US installations and the like. And private places like nuke plants. If you're comfortable with them being underarmed.....



I am comfortable with mercenaries who are American Citizens having the same rights that other American Citizens have. I am not comfortable with Mercenaries becoming a protected class of person in the USA who can ignore federal and state laws, while the American Citizen can not.

It is also a fallacy to state they are "underarmed", as they already have greater access to weaponry that citizens can not get and have more rights then citizens, as viewed in the Katrina gun confiscations.


Originally Posted By Spade:
The other thing some of you guys are forgetting is you NEVER EVER get everything at once. Have you learned nothing from the Clinton era successes by ANTI-gunners?
SMALL STEPS WIN THE DAY. You take what you can get now. Then you come back the next day and get MORE. One bill saying "MGs ARE LEGAL!" will not work. FIVE bills might.



No, we lost our rights in single bills. They can all be taken back with one bill. This bill does nothing that is not already a law except make a protected class of corporation: the mercenary.

I oppose this bill and will contact my representatives tomarrow.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 6:56:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Badseed:

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Badseed:
Ummm, form a corporation.





Your corporation would have to be providing a national security related service or training.



Are you familiar with this topic? Class3 for a corp?




Just reading what the bill says.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 7:04:55 PM EDT
This is fucking Orwellian no matter how you look at. When SHTF contractors are going to get called in to help out. Utter fucking bullshit. Also Posse comitatus doesn't apply to these fuckers either, and you want to go and arm these guys further. So when shit happens the gubment happens to contract these guys out, so in-turn the gubment can say we didn't send in the military, so the posse comitatus thing was never violated.

America wake up!
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 7:09:50 PM EDT
Yea, but just think they will offer a Operator/Instructor course for everyone(think CCW permit).

Once you are certified you can buy a post ban Machine gun.

Then a few years down the road they let everyone buy MGs again.

Man I want this bill to pass.

FREE
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 7:12:16 PM EDT
This leads to a lot of problems. And I am sure the ATF will make up the solutions as they go.

For Example, does this now mean that I can get a demo letter from Blackwater or the likes? Seriously. It has some language about Manufacturures, but I didnt see anything about dealers. Do I not have the right to obtain weapons for sales prospecting as a dealer? And I can not obtain a weapon made after 1986 without a GOVERNMENT entity giving me permision to do so. Is the government picking and choosing who can sell to Contractors? Or am I to understand that as a Class III dealer I can now become and instructor of some kind and bypass all of the demo letter BS now anyways?

On a weird note, If this is not clarified, this issue could be the Lawsuit that brings down the 86 ban house of cards. I dont know why people are always harping on the fact that you have to find something other than a second amendment issue to fight a second ammendment issue but that is what I always see. So this would have trade issues written all over it.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 7:13:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Badseed:

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Badseed:
Ummm, form a corporation.





Your corporation would have to be providing a national security related service or training.



Are you familiar with this topic? Class3 for a corp?




Just reading what the bill says.



I guess that's good enough
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 7:13:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FREEFALLE7:
Yea, but just think they will offer a Operator/Instructor course for everyone(think CCW permit).

Once you are certified you can buy a post ban Machine gun.

Then a few years down the road they let everyone buy MGs again.

Man I want this bill to pass.

FREE



Maybe there is some relevance to reading between the lines. Problem is, I just don't see it.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 7:15:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Dance:
So I am supposed to get behind a bill written to give mercenaries machine guns in our country, but not allow the American Citizen the same thing?




Contractors provide security for many US installations and the like. And private places like nuke plants. If you're comfortable with them being underarmed.....





Nuke plants are already exempt from 922(o). I don't know where it is in the regs, but it's true. They are hardly "underarmed".
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 7:16:43 PM EDT
The "person" would have to have a contract with the United States gov that requires the weapon. Not just anybody who has worked / is working a contract or is an instructor.
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 7:18:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2006 7:21:37 PM EDT by BigRedDog]

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:
Bottom line?



Bottom line is that CRC already posted a thread about this.

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=450304&page=1

Why it is he's posting the exact same damn thing again with a more sensational title I have no idea. Just his usual attention-whore trolling I guess....



Please do not call dupe twice in a row .

You are duping your dupe

How many times do you dupe? Is once enough or must you continue to dupe after dupe after dupe.

I had not seen nor heard of this and I appreciate it being brought to my attention.

If you need me to tell you again,,,,,,,,well never mind that would be a dupe
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:35:38 AM EDT
The BATFE has f*cked over at least one really good guy at Blackwater because of their BS nonsense. If this bill would stop that kind of stuff, then I am all for it.

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:41:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 4:43:41 AM EDT by Kharn]
Here's a quick list of the changes in plain English:

SEC. 2. CORRECTION OF NONSUBSTANTIVE ERROR IN AGE LIMIT PROVISION.
Simple wording change (from "less than 18yo" to "has not attained 18yo")

SEC. 3. POSSESSION AND TRANSFER OF MACHINEGUNS FOR INDUSTRY TESTING AND SECURITY CONTRACTING.
Companies with federal security contracts (nuclear plant guards, military facility guards, etc) can buy post-86 MGs. Also, SOTs (licensed MG manufacturers) can buy post-86 MGs for "testing, research, design, or development of ammunition or a firearm", ie: no more demo letter required from the local police chief requesting the SOT buy the firearm to demonstration for possible purchase. Also, states that ATF will only use an FBI fingerprint check and a NICS check to determine if an employee of a federal contractor should be allowed to carry/use a machine gun in the performance of their job duties. MGs may be imported for the above purposes.


SEC. 4. ELIMINATION OF OBSOLETE LANGUAGE ADDED BY THE BRADY HANDGUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT.
Eliminates the law regarding handgun waiting periods that was in-use before NICS came online.


SEC. 5. BAN ON TAX OR FEE FOR BACKGROUND CHECK BY THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
Just like it sounds, the AG cant charge a fee for NICS. I bet Janet Reno wishes she'd thought of that.


SEC. 6. ELIMINATION OF WRITTEN PERMISSION REQUIREMENT FOR SUPERVISED HANDGUN USE.
Allows juveniles to use handguns without written permission during "ranching or farming activities, target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun." Currently, only ranching and farming activities are exempted by that clause and written permission by the parent or guardian is required before the juvenile can shoot the handgun.


SEC. 7. ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE MULTIPLE SALES REPORT REQUIREMENT.
Just like it sounds, the State Police wont be notified when you buy more than one handgun in a 5 day period.


SEC. 8. BAN ON ELECTRONIC RETRIEVAL OF FIREARMS PURCHASER INFORMATION.
The AG cant search out-of-business FFL's 4473s using electronic methods (ie: a database of scanned 4473s), they would have to go through the records by hand to find the one they want.


SEC. 9. TRACE DISCLOSURE.
4473 (etc) data cant be given to anyone but law enforcement personnel with jurisdiction over the region the 4473 data came from (IIRC, Chicago Mayor Daley wanted all the multiple sales reports for IL so he could track down straw purchasers, obviously outside his jurisdiction). 4473 data cant be used in civil court unless the case is specifically about purchases (ie: appealing a wrongful denial).


SEC. 10. BARREL AND RECEIVER IMPORTATION.
The ATF's little "no more assault rifle barrels or recievers can be imported" fiat is voided. They claimed individuals were abusing the "repair and replacement" clause allowing "assault rifle" parts importation (abused by building those "repair and replacement" parts kits into functional rifles using American parts), so they tried to say no more "assault rifle" barrels or recievers could be imported.

Now, does this bill sound like a bad thing?

Kharn
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 4:54:25 AM EDT
for those who feel that a single bill can get back our rights, why dont you right up such a bill and submit it to your local representive.

seriously guys, with society becoming more and more liberal every day, the likly hood of the repeal of th NFA is impossible.

doesnt anybody find it funny that all the significant bills that are be pushed through these days are vastly different than what the people want? we want the borders closed and controlled, they offer amnesty.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:21:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Now, does this bill sound like a bad thing?

Kharn



Stop right there.

You are making too much sense.

Don't you understand how hysterical you should be right now? How afraid you should be of "mercenaries" roaming around America with machine guns taking away all of our guns?? Can't you hear the black helicopters in the distance???

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:22:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By m4hk33:
for those who feel that a single bill can get back our rights, why dont you right up such a bill and submit it to your local representive.



Nobody can "right" up a bill and send it to our local representatives.

Now someone familiar with crafting legislation can WRITE up some proposed language for a bill.



seriously guys, with society becoming more and more liberal every day, the likly hood of the repeal of th NFA is impossible.



Well it certainly isn't going to happen with THAT attitude.

Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:33:24 AM EDT
im only being realistic, ill be the first to contact represenitives and ask them to support such bills


although post 9/11 people support the Second amendment more, anything that would be written with language that would allow for the population to attain new MG's would not be received well.

for example i often bring my liberal, cousin who is in the Army shooting with me, even though he has a great time shooting, he doesnt see why people should be able to own weapons like i have,(ar10/silenced 10.5 LMT).

in addition, when he noticed a friends 7.5 pistol set up, he couldnt get past how deadly that was and there was no need for it, even after telling him that the bullets will not fragment, and be as effective as a. 22LR. he will not accept it, no matter how much I try to teach him, he ignors the facts because they look aggresive.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:36:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By m4hk33:
im only being realistic, ill be the first to contact represenitives and ask them to support such bills


although post 9/11 people support the Second amendment more, anything that would be written with language that would allow for the population to attain new MG's would not be received well.

for example i often bring my liberal, cousin who is in the Army shooting with me, even though he has a great time shooting, he doesnt see why people should be able to own weapons like i have,(ar10/silenced 10.5 LMT).

in addition, when he noticed a friends 7.5 pistol set up, he couldnt get past how deadly that was and there was no need for it, even after telling him that the bullets will not fragment, and be as effective as a. 22LR. he will not accept it, no matter how much I try to teach him, he ignors the facts because they look aggresive.



The answer to that is education. Educate, then reform. That's the process. Certainly not everyone will be convinced, but many will.
Link Posted: 3/31/2006 5:43:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/31/2006 5:45:16 AM EDT by m4hk33]
i here you, I try to teach as many people as I can, and honestly i get more enjoyment out of teaching and letting people shoot my weapons then shooting myself because often time this is there first experience with such weapons. I try to show them that they are no diffrent than any other gun the fires bullets
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top