Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/12/2003 8:38:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2003 9:07:10 AM EDT by LoginName]
Go to [url]http://thomas.loc.gov[/url] and enter HR 2038 in the search feature. The rumors are true!!!! There's some pretty restrictive additions added. Adding the Mini-14, M-1 Carbine, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, etc... They dropped the bayonet lug and grenade launcher language and added forward grip and barell shroud. Frames... Recievers... Conversion kits... And if I'm reading it correctly, includes possesion of "Cali" style fixed mag type rifles. And this is only a small part of it.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 8:48:32 AM EDT
Get your hi-point carbines!!!!! LOL! I wonder how many of these jokers are going to get bounced out of congress Nov 2004?
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 9:05:26 AM EDT
Strange stuff there... HK USP Tactical and MK 23 would be illegal (no threaded barrels on pistols).
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 9:20:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2003 9:23:05 AM EDT by JIMBEAM]
[b]`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has-- `(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a threaded barrel; `(iii) a pistol grip; `(iv) a forward grip; or `(v) a barrel shroud. [/b] So any detachable magazine rifle with a pistol grip will be illegal? [b] `(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, 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 particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'. [/b] Holy Shit
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 9:22:48 AM EDT
This section section L means to me that M1 Garands are included. And M1 carbines.(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, 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 particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 9:25:17 AM EDT
[b]`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'. (2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.[/b]
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 9:26:50 AM EDT
That might also mean M1A's and !!!! Mini-14's!!! And what does the barrel SHROUD part mean? That sounds like a GARAND also.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 9:37:42 AM EDT
liberal noise...
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 9:39:01 AM EDT
This bill is just to make us shake in our boots. They think that by "reducing" the language to the current configuration or a little worse, that we will all breath a collective sigh and give a thumbs up. FIGHT IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 9:41:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By andrew: That might also mean M1A's and !!!! Mini-14's!!! And what does the barrel SHROUD part mean? That sounds like a GARAND also.
View Quote
Or, the handguards on an AR. Just as bad; it would end up being subject to BATFE interpetation.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 9:53:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LoginName:
Originally Posted By andrew: That might also mean M1A's and !!!! Mini-14's!!! And what does the barrel SHROUD part mean? That sounds like a GARAND also.
View Quote
Or, the handguards on an AR. Just as bad; it would end up being subject to BATFE interpetation.
View Quote
No your AR wouldbe frucked because it already has a pistol grip and detachable magazine.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 10:06:43 AM EDT
My understanding is that there are two proposed laws. One a stricter one and one nearly identical to the existing law. Bush said he'd sign the latter. Still bad and disappointing--particularly b/c of the law's inherent hypocricy and the mag ban--but not as bad as this, which resembles the '89 import ban.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 10:14:12 AM EDT
That bill's going straight to the shitcan, and at warp speed. CJ
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 10:19:37 AM EDT
Looks like they are trying to get Kalifornia laws on the books. Im not sure if that will work, I hear a bunch of disabled folks here in the PRK are getting together to sue the state for being unfair to those that need a pistol grip because of a disablity. Im not sure theyt will win but at least they are fighting. The only thing that really screws us in this state is the "by name" weapons list. Problem is these folks will keep trying until they get what they want (a gungrabbers job is never done)
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 10:27:59 AM EDT
Here's a [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2038:]direct link[/url]. This bill is so far out there, someone's already wiping his ass with it.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 11:04:54 AM EDT
Those arrogant, elitist, self-absorbed morons! That's just plain evil. My Congressman has been contacted. Fortunately, I can count on him to do the right thing.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 11:31:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 11:53:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM: [b]`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has-- `(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a threaded barrel; `(iii) a pistol grip; `(iv) a forward grip; or `(v) a barrel shroud. [/b]
View Quote
A forward grip? All rifles have forward grips, that is what differentiates it from a pistol. This law bans all semis rifles with detachable magazine...
View Quote
But on the bright side, you can have a bayonet and grenade launcher if this law passes. [rocket]
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:05:37 PM EDT
If that bill passes, no one will give a shit about gun laws anymore.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:18:46 PM EDT
That bill is heading straight for the shitcan. No doubt about it. Those who sponsored it will not be re-elected, with the possible exception of the Californiana. This bill probably won't even make it out of the judiciary, and if it does, there'll be a fight on the House floor over who gets to make a motion to table (shitcan) the bill first. The list of cosponsors of this bill is nothing less than the list of our worst enemies in the House: Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. NADLER, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. WATERS, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WEINER, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. CASE, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. HONDA, Mr. STARK, Ms. SOLIS, Ms. LEE, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. NORTON, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. RUSH, Ms. WATSON, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. OWENS, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. FARR, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. HOLT, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. FATTAH, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Mr. LANGEVIN These are all some of our enemies. They must not be re-elected come hell or high water. Vote them out. Recall petitions are warranted in this case. CJ
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:24:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM: `(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun [red]originally designed for military or law enforcement use[/red], or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for [red]sporting purposes[/red], [blue]as determined by the Attorney General[/blue]. In making the determination, 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 particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
View Quote
Hmmm... I see problems with their wording here...
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:31:08 PM EDT
This law affects many firearms that are used for "sporting purposes". Many of the members of congress probably own these types of firearms, even if they supported the 1994 AWB. They will likely not support this ban.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:35:00 PM EDT
I didn't see Flash Hider on the list anymore... Only threaded barrels. Looks like we would still be able to update our current post-bans to have flash hiders and silencers, as long as they do not use threads...
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:37:11 PM EDT
You know, after the sunset of the '94 AW Ban, our next step should be to get rid of this ridiculous "sporting purposes" crap. I am SO SICK of hearing that. Last time I checked, the Second Amendment does mention anything about a "sporting purposes" prerequisite. --Mike
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:40:45 PM EDT
Mother of God..... Are the authors of this POS [b]INSANE[/b]? Something tells me they're following the same playbook they've followed since they got their asses handed to them last November: pander to the most extremist corners of their movement in order to "differentiate" themselves from the Republicans. Yep, this is sure to do that! "Differentiate". I thought that's what you did to a polynomial...
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:45:11 PM EDT
No threaded barrles on pistols! You mean my P22 would be banned!!! [ROFL]
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:48:40 PM EDT
Can we collectively file a lawsuit against these congresspersons for being a blatant and utter threat to the safety and security of our nation? If not ... anybody up for a group buy on red flags?
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 1:52:34 PM EDT
See this part right here: "or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes" That would include just about ANY firearm.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 2:04:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 2:30:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sherrick13: Everyone needs to understand they know they will not get this. It is a starting point. Just like when you are buying a car you lowball knowing you will meet somewhere in the middle. This is what all the compromising in the last 30 years have got us.
View Quote
That's not cause for alarm? Exactly how much is enough? There is NO ROOM for compromise here. Any compromise is still a loss on our part, and a further degradation of our civil liberties.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 4:01:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2003 4:05:32 PM EDT by LoginName]
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: Those who sponsored it will not be re-elected, with the possible exception of the Californiana. The list of cosponsors of this bill is nothing less than the list of our worst enemies in the House: CJ
View Quote
I'm willing to bet most, if not all, of these menstural clots are in politically safe districts... seats that have been unopposed for years by Repubs or even moderate Dems. I count 7 from MA alone; including both my former and current reps: Capuano and Markey. I'm in the process of composing [b]yet another[/b] blistering diatribe condemning them. Think it will get me anywhere? (except being placed on a "watch' list or visit from the State Police [:D]). 12 more years until retirement then I'm outta here.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 5:44:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2003 5:56:11 PM EDT by cmjohnson]
It would be INCREDIBLE to see someone grow the balls it takes to actually file suit in federal court against the sponsors of these bills, accusing them of treason in the form of an attempt to directly subvert the language of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Treason, conspiracy to subvert the Constitution, conspiracy to deprive citizens of their right to keep and bear arms. Those would be two, possibly three, CRIMINAL charges that could possibly stand in court. Any lawyers out there who could advise on the feasibility of this concept? Oh...by the way, any congressman with any brain (read that as the ones who are pro-gun) will know better than to accept a lesser bill in exchange for throwing out a really foul one. I really think the line in the sand has been drawn, and this congress will pass NO new (or old) laws restricting gun rights in any way. I certainly pray this is true! CJ
Top Top