Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/17/2006 9:04:23 PM EDT
Hey guys i just saw this and was wondering if anyone had any more information on this thanks ADAM LINK
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 4:10:55 AM EDT
This as much as you have to read................


Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DEWINE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. DURBIN, TURBAN Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DODD, and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



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


A BILL
To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.


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 `Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:

`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon




G-Damn, gun-grabbing Assholes will not rest until every American is disarmed!

How the F do they justify this, while proclaiming allegiance to our Constitution?

Link Posted: 3/18/2006 4:31:27 AM EDT
Good lord. This apply to those that already own them as well or would this be just for new manufactures?
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 4:40:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2006 4:42:03 AM EDT by DM1975]
That was last year wasnt it? Did this bill not die a horrible death?

ETA: If you notice at the bottom, every rifle and handgun known to man is listed, I think this is just liberal, gun hating, nazi fag shit propaganda myself.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 4:50:58 AM EDT
Don't get this bill confused with the discussion that was started in the spring of 2004. They tried to get discussion started in the spring of 2004 to get a bill started and to try to get it passed before the Assault Weapons Ban expired in Sept. of 2004, remember? I guess this is a new bill that was proposed last spring and is just now getting consideration. ARKAR
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 4:53:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2006 5:34:59 AM EDT by AlwaysPlayin]
Why dont these dumbasses go after / spend the money on the bad guys and irresponsible gun owners rather than slapping all the resonsible gun owners with an outright ban.

That AR definition makes my Ruko 22cal m16 lookalike a prohibited weapon - it is semi auto, has a telescoping stock and a pistol grip.

AP
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 5:14:53 AM EDT
Please allow me to apologize for my do-gooder gone wild Senator (DeWine). He has morphed froma good guy to an absolute dumb-ass the last ten years or so. BUT, he is up for reelection (or not) this year and Ohio is chock-full of voting gun owners. John Mitchell (Ohio) for US Senate, Spread the word, keep Washington out of our f**king gun safes.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 8:55:04 AM EDT
Everyone of those names should have a link available to there mail. Just as many of us E-mailed Mike Cox in Michigan thanking him for his MG and silencer law ruling.
(Yes there legal here now)We should all be berating there E-mail for there unconstitutional actions. Filling there mail with hate mail and sending a message at the polls is the only way to change how these people are going to act.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 8:57:13 AM EDT
I wish John Warner would go ahead and retire. He is a lying POS.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 9:12:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I wish John Warner would go ahead and retire. He is a lying POS.



+1 that bum has to go...........heis no friend of 2nd amendment
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 9:23:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metalrocks:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I wish John Warner would go ahead and retire. He is a lying POS.



+1 that bum has to go...........heis no friend of 2nd amendment



It's funny how a handful or states can keep the nation hostage with dumb laws. There would be no shitty anti gun bills having a prayer of becoming law if Cali and NYC werent backing them.

How is it equal representation if two states can determine the fate of 50. The entire midwest barely has enough electorates to fight against Cali alone
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 9:25:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By metalrocks:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I wish John Warner would go ahead and retire. He is a lying POS.



+1 that bum has to go...........heis no friend of 2nd amendment



It's funny how a handful or states can keep the nation hostage with dumb laws. There would be no shitty anti gun bills having a prayer of becoming law if Cali and NYC werent backing them.

How is it equal representation if two states can determine the fate of 50. The entire midwest barely has enough electorates to fight against Cali alone

Blame the 17th Amendment to the Constitution for that.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 9:26:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By metalrocks:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I wish John Warner would go ahead and retire. He is a lying POS.



+1 that bum has to go...........heis no friend of 2nd amendment



It's funny how a handful or states can keep the nation hostage with dumb laws. There would be no shitty anti gun bills having a prayer of becoming law if Cali and NYC werent backing them.

How is it equal representation if two states can determine the fate of 50. The entire midwest barely has enough electorates to fight against Cali alone


Amen.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 9:38:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By metalrocks:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I wish John Warner would go ahead and retire. He is a lying POS.



+1 that bum has to go...........heis no friend of 2nd amendment



It's funny how a handful or states can keep the nation hostage with dumb laws. There would be no shitty anti gun bills having a prayer of becoming law if Cali and NYC werent backing them.

How is it equal representation if two states can determine the fate of 50. The entire midwest barely has enough electorates to fight against Cali alone



Because in this country we count the number of people, not the number of states.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 12:15:00 PM EDT
BUMP

We need to do something about this if we can
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 12:24:42 PM EDT
These libitards don't realize it but there is a MUCH better way to control guns.

I refuse to post it simply because my idea would get out and the dem's would fall all over themselves to impliment it.

Fucktards.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 1:05:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By metalrocks:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I wish John Warner would go ahead and retire. He is a lying POS.



+1 that bum has to go...........heis no friend of 2nd amendment



It's funny how a handful or states can keep the nation hostage with dumb laws. There would be no shitty anti gun bills having a prayer of becoming law if Cali and NYC weren't backing them.

How is it equal representation if two states can determine the fate of 50. The entire midwest barely has enough electorates to fight against Cali alone



Majority rules

But in the case of Presidential elections, it is the electoral college. If it weren't for the electoral college Al-F-ing-Gore would have been President in 2000.


No surprise Dem's are trying to get the electoral college reversed, and popular vote installed to elect a President. (One of many stories on this)

Won't happen. But if it did, a couple of big metropolitan areas would elect a President for us (NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philly...............)

all but Houston heavily Democrat, but with Hispanic voters thats is changing too.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 1:13:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
[
It's funny how a handful or states can keep the nation hostage with dumb laws. There would be no shitty anti gun bills having a prayer of becoming law if Cali and NYC werent backing them.

How is it equal representation if two states can determine the fate of 50. The entire midwest barely has enough electorates to fight against Cali alone



just like virtally every state the large cities dump on the rest of the state
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 1:54:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2006 2:00:47 PM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By metalrocks:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
I wish John Warner would go ahead and retire. He is a lying POS.



+1 that bum has to go...........heis no friend of 2nd amendment



It's funny how a handful or states can keep the nation hostage with dumb laws. There would be no shitty anti gun bills having a prayer of becoming law if Cali and NYC werent backing them.

How is it equal representation if two states can determine the fate of 50. The entire midwest barely has enough electorates to fight against Cali alone



Because in this country we count the number of people, not the number of states.



There use to be some concept of State Sovereignty. What works in Cali and NYC doesnt work everywhere else yet the rest of the nation must bow under the rules put forward by Cali representation.

Something is very wrong with the math here. One man one vote and the electorate system have serious flaws. Both have the means to defeat State Sovereignty.

Defend the civil rights and freedom of the people
Make money for the people
Wage war on behalf of the people
That is the role of the federal Gov't


Maybe it is time for something new
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:54:23 AM EDT
Everyone here needs to see this thread
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:27:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Glock_10mm:
Everyone here needs to see this thread



Why? Its just the SSDD.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:45:59 AM EDT
Take a minute to look at the list of weapons there. They have a bunch of 1800's lever actions and single shot shotguns

Are these weapons they want to ban also ? They want to take the bayonet lug and flash hider off thoes guns ?

Invisiblesoul
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:13:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 9:13:47 AM EDT by Interceptor_Knight]

Originally Posted By TheInvisibleSoul:
Take a minute to look at the list of weapons there. They have a bunch of 1800's lever actions and single shot shotguns

Are these weapons they want to ban also ? They want to take the bayonet lug and flash hider off thoes guns ?




All of the guns listed in Appendix A are protected.


`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;


Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:31:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 9:47:43 AM EDT by M4C]
2008 is going to be a year full of uncertainty for us.

How many here really think Hitlary Klinton has the chance?
I do, especially when (s)he becomes the Dem party candidate and wins it easily. Good gawd, we're screwed.
Imagine this, Hitlary president and Billybob Klinton appointed attorney gerneral! The Oval Office, a little shop of horrors...the savage Muslims and freedom-haters throughout Europe, Canada and Latin America are rejoicing as America's dupes have returned to power.
Somebody shoot me...

I apologize if all this babbling rattled someone's cage and ruined their weekend, but it just doesn't seem impossible to me. I'd say odds still are against this scenario.

It is very important that our guys in congress don't lose out this November. No major turnovers in congress this year would give us some insurance against a disaster in 2008 and the consequences thereafter. What has happened to Tom DeLay seems a very bad omen to me.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 10:18:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4C:
2008 is going to be a year full of uncertainty for us.

How many here really think Hitlary Klinton has the chance?
I do, especially when (s)he becomes the Dem party candidate and wins it easily. Good gawd, we're screwed.
Imagine this, Hitlary president and Billybob Klinton appointed attorney gerneral! The Oval Office, a little shop of horrors...the savage Muslims and freedom-haters throughout Europe, Canada and Latin America are rejoicing as America's dupes have returned to power.
Somebody shoot me...

I apologize if all this babbling rattled someone's cage and ruined their weekend, but it just doesn't seem impossible to me. I'd say odds still are against this scenario.

It is very important that our guys in congress don't lose out this November. No major turnovers in congress this year would give us some insurance against a disaster in 2008 and the consequences thereafter. What has happened to Tom DeLay seems a very bad omen to me.

If the Republicans loose congress this year I will most certainly be buying additional AR's.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 10:38:27 AM EDT
(a) STUDY- The Attorney General shall investigate and study the effect of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) REPORT- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and determinations made in the study under subsection (a).

Am wrong or did they not do this last time with the original AWB and found it had no affect on crime ? I guess there was some massive crime wave, we all missed, of people using bayonets, flash supressors and grenade launchers to commit crimes. Wow I must have missed that.
Guess I'll be saving up some money to buy some additional toys in the event this unconstitutional crap actually passes.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 11:23:56 AM EDT
i think my ruger 10/22 would fall under that ban too...how wierd
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 11:41:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metalsaber:
Good lord. This apply to those that already own them as well or would this be just for new manufactures?



Hopefully all who own them.
This would be far better for our country.
Grandfathering will be the death of us.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 11:42:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AlwaysPlayin:
Why dont these dumbasses go after / spend the money on the bad guys and irresponsible gun owners rather than slapping all the resonsible gun owners with an outright ban.

That AR definition makes my Ruko 22cal m16 lookalike a prohibited weapon - it is semi auto, has a telescoping stock and a pistol grip.

AP



Because an armed populace is an obstacle to a socialist, one world government.
Just a guess.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 11:45:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
These libitards don't realize it but there is a MUCH better way to control guns.

I refuse to post it simply because my idea would get out and the dem's would fall all over themselves to impliment it.

Fucktards.



ATF already conducted a white paper study on the most feasible way to disarm citizens.
Control the ammo supply, both manufactured and reloading components.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 11:46:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
These libitards don't realize it but there is a MUCH better way to control guns.

I refuse to post it simply because my idea would get out and the dem's would fall all over themselves to impliment it.

Fucktards.



ATF already conducted a white paper study on the most feasible way to disarm citizens.
Control the ammo supply, both manufactured and reloading components.



Close. but not quite
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 12:45:16 PM EDT
They are just Nazi's in the literal sense. Communist Russia and Nazi Germany had gun control laws like these and look what happened to them! Also clearly these people are just a bunch of CRACK SNIFFING MORONS! THIS WILL ONLY PREVENT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM POSESSING "ASSAULT WEAPONS." I WILL ONLY CONCEDE THIS POINT WHEN SOMEBODY SHOWS ME HARD EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES THAT CRIMINALS OBEY THE LAWS. Clearly the issue pisses me off to a large degree
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 3:32:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 3:32:18 PM EDT by HoodyHoo21]
---It makes me sick to my stomach
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 3:49:06 PM EDT
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:00:08 PM EDT
Just remember that the leftists will introduce a very extreme bill in the hopes of getting a compromise bill which will be considered "reasonable gun control".

To keep this from happening within the confines of the system you need to oust Feinstein, Boxer and Schumer. Odds of this happening are slim slim slim. Politicians will not introduce bills if they think it will cost them or party members their jobs. As long as they can attempt to undermine the constitution with impudence and without fear of reprisal from the voters there is no deterrent.

The other method is to make it very clear through the decisive collective effort of every gun owner, where it is understood clearly and without question that any attempt at gun grabbing will be met with extreme hostility.

Not 10 people locked up in a compound either. You need several million assembled, armed and prepared to act in the name of the constitution
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 4:12:54 PM EDT

The other method is to make it very clear through the decisive collective effort of every gun owner, where it is understood clearly and without question that any attempt at gun grabbing will be met with extreme hostility.

Not 10 people locked up in a compound either. You need several million assembled, armed and prepared to act in the name of the constitution



How many of those millions would leave the area without the right to bear arms because of harmful intent towards fellow americans, the government, and police? THis isn't as simple as we all would like it to be because the lefties are stubborn bastards as usual. The confederacy was composed of extreme leftists. Why don't we send a letter to Mrs. Finestein and ask her how many slaves she owns? THat would surely make her happy.

But what really needs to happen is one or more of these (do they qualify as people?) to get kidnapped and have some form of violence used against them that is nothing like a firearm. Then their view might be changed and others will follow. After all, lefties are like sheep, one could walk off a cliff, to fall to its death, and the others would follow because "hey, he did it, why not?"

The fact of the matter is, the lefties have always been the source of conflict in America. If they didn't exist then equal rights would be more equal, we would all have a better economy, guns wouldn't be continually pressured out of existence, and everyone would be happier.

And to prove that guns don't cause crime. Look at Israel, how many Israeli vs. Israeli gunfights are there? That's right, none. Every single Israeli over the age of 18 has a gun and their only source of violence is from the Palestinians. If guns caused crime then Israel wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. It's people like Clinton and Finestein who cause crime. They motivate others with opposite views to take up all their might against them because the left has all the poor voting for them; calling for a stronger united front on the right. The left continually boycotts stores and the government, causing the economy to drop and then they have the nerve to turn around and blame it on the government if it's republican. They have shown so much corruption in their history that any movement from them should be viewed from the same perspective as a political movement from some Hitlerites. In fact, i'd sooner support the damn skinheads than Hillary Rod[in the]ham Clinton. What a bitch. Excuse me for the language and attitude but I cant stand that woman.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:30:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2006 11:10:12 PM EDT by ArJunaBug]

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
Just remember that the leftists will introduce a very extreme bill in the hopes of getting a compromise bill which will be considered "reasonable gun control".

To keep this from happening within the confines of the system you need to oust Feinstein, Boxer and Schumer. Odds of this happening are slim slim slim. Politicians will not introduce bills if they think it will cost them or party members their jobs. As long as they can attempt to undermine the constitution with impudence and without fear of reprisal from the voters there is no deterrent.

The other method is to make it very clear through the decisive collective effort of every gun owner, where it is understood clearly and without question that any attempt at gun grabbing will be met with extreme hostility.

Not 10 people locked up in a compound either. You need several million assembled, armed and prepared to act in the name of the constitution



We don't need to be a million people assembled and armed. We simply need to demonstrate IN ADVANCE that we will not relinquish our weapons until they are pulled from our dead hands. I would be willing to start a movement which could be a focal point for those willing to ascertain their position on this matter. If millions of Americans avow to resist to the end, and we publicize this fact, it would have a huge impact. First, it would force a serious discussion of the merits of gun control (or lack thereof). It would be a strong platform for proving what we have know all along, that guns don't kill people, people do, and more importantly it's the people with illegal guns and not the law abiding citizen with legal guns. I truly believe that if everyone understood that the places with the least gun control experience the least crime and vice-versa, it would be a no brainer. We have enough data at this point to make this case clearly.

I think the NRA has been very slack in its efforts of late. With all that money they should promote a national debate on network TV on the merits of an armed citizenry. The problem is we only see sound bites from both sides of the argument and the voters are caught in the middle not knowing what to believe.

We need to make a move before it's too late.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:22:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArJunaBug:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:
Just remember that the leftists will introduce a very extreme bill in the hopes of getting a compromise bill which will be considered "reasonable gun control".

To keep this from happening within the confines of the system you need to oust Feinstein, Boxer and Schumer. Odds of this happening are slim slim slim. Politicians will not introduce bills if they think it will cost them or party members their jobs. As long as they can attempt to undermine the constitution with impudence and without fear of reprisal from the voters there is no deterrent.

The other method is to make it very clear through the decisive collective effort of every gun owner, where it is understood clearly and without question that any attempt at gun grabbing will be met with extreme hostility.

Not 10 people locked up in a compound either. You need several million assembled, armed and prepared to act in the name of the constitution



We don't need to be a million people assembled and armed. We simply need to demonstrate IN ADVANCE that we will not relinquish our weapons until they are pulled from our dead hands. I would be willing to start a movement which could be a focal point for those willing to ascertain their position on this matter. If millions of Americans avow to resist to the end, and we publicize this fact, it would have a huge impact. First, it would force a serious discussion of the merits of gun control (or lack thereof). It would be a strong platform for proving what we have know all along, that guns don't kill people, people do, and more importantly it's the people with illegal guns and not the law abiding citizen with legal guns. I truly believe that if everyone understood that the places with the least gun control experience the least crime and vice-versa, it would be a no brainer. We have enough data at this point to make this case clearly.

I think the NRA has been very slack in its efforts of late. With all that money they should promote a national debate on network TV on the merits of an armed citizenry. The problem is we only see sound bites from both sides of the argument and the voters are caught in the middle not knowing what to believe.

We need to make a move before it's too late.


Now all we need is a Revolution!



Where do I sign up
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:07:00 PM EDT


Now all we need is a Revolution!



+10000000000000000
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:10:52 PM EDT
Certainly looks like it's heading that way.

Wonder how anti-gunners will fight back? Sticks and stones perhaps? Play Hilary's voice over loudspeakers?
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:23:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 9:23:30 PM EDT by thedoctors308]

Originally Posted By JumboJim:
Certainly looks like it's heading that way.

Wonder how anti-gunners will fight back? Sticks and stones perhaps? Play Hilary's voice over loudspeakers?



They'll do what liberals always do.
Send someone else to fight their battles.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:37:25 PM EDT
It is not revolution that is required. Rather, it is counter-revolution. And that is how the issue needs to be framed.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:40:50 PM EDT
Some of you have replied that if the liberals make it into high office.......you would just go out and quickly buy your Ar's.

But keep in mind.....There is a strong push in several states to band the Possession or ownership of weapons considered legal now -- like your RRA AR15's

When this happens " CONFISCATION" will be the play of the day.

Citizens will be given certains dates to turn over all the prohibited weapons or else.......... !!

Ammo sales will be strictly controlled by the Fed.s.......

We are headed for some dangerous times............... and we had better not have our heads up our asses when the time comes or we will be at the mercy of the criminal element.

JF.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 10:09:02 PM EDT
This is outrageous.... the gun-grabbing liberals......

I just contacted my state representative via email and sent him the following message. I probably left a few things out, but I hope he gets the picture..... I would suggest that you contact your local legislators and let them know where you stand on this issue.... They need to see that their constituents are not a bunch of unorganized sheep and we have a voice, and will not be denied as we were before in 1994.....

MESSAGE--->

I am writing you this evening, to inform you that as one of your constituents, Lifetime member of the NRA and supporter of NRA-ILA, that I, in no way shape or form support bill s.620 introduced by Dianne Fienstien of California in regards to an outright ban or restrictive regulation of "assault type weapons" (as they are erroneously described). I respectively request that you voice my, and tens/hundreds of thousands of other law abiding citizens opinions in regards to this proposed piece of legislation. This is an affront to all law-abiding citizenry, perpetrated by a "few" that are mis-informed and ill-guided, and would seek to revoke or restrict my second amendment rights, and deny "recreational shooting" as a sport.

Thank you, I plan to further contact you in regards to this proposed legislation to seek your position on this. Alternatively, my telephone number is included as part of my contact information if you feel the need or desire to speak with me further on this subject.

Thank you for your time and I hope that we stand on the same side of the fence on this issue.

>NAME AND ADDRESS REMOVED TO PROTECT MY PRIVACY<



Included is a sample of the text of said proposed legislation:


109th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 620

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 14, 2005

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DEWINE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DODD, and Mr. REED) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

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 `Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:

`(v)(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.

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

`(B) any firearm that--

`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(iii) is an antique firearm;

`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

`(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States (including the United States armed forces and, under regulations pursuant to title 50, United States Code, the National Guard and Reserve), or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after paragraph (29) the following:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

(c) PENALTIES-

(1) VIOLATION OF SECTION 922(v)- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `or (q) of section 922' and inserting `(r), or (v) of section 922'.

(2) USE OR POSSESSION DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME- Section 924(c)(1)(B)(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or semiautomatic assault weapon,' after `short-barreled shotgun,'. ...........


blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc...... (edited for the sake of saving some bandwidth, however I did include most of the text except for the Appendix for my Legislators perusal)


<--- MESSAGE
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 11:45:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JumboJim:
Certainly looks like it's heading that way.

Wonder how anti-gunners will fight back? Sticks and stones perhaps? Play Hilary's voice over loudspeakers?



Remember WACO under the clinton administration. If confiscation or an outright ban takes place expect WACO style sieges to play out across the country and without much press.

The military, the ATF, and local LEO brown shirts will all become the enemy of the gun owner under the leftist government
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:24:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rebel102285:
Hey guys i just saw this and was wondering if anyone had any more information on this thanks ADAM LINK



this was LAST year.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:27:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By rebel102285:
Hey guys i just saw this and was wondering if anyone had any more information on this thanks ADAM LINK



this was LAST year.




No shit, let this one die already.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 1:57:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BushmasterGuy77:
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!



AMEN.

If they try to take my weapons, I'll give them the bullets first!
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 2:37:25 AM EDT
Typing on your 'puters is what they want you to do............ most of you guys are too lazy to write to your senators, instead you'd rather
buy a lower and hope it doesnt happen to you. We had our time to buy everything we needed, now start stocking up on ammo...............
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 4:01:39 AM EDT
IBTM

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 4:16:42 AM EDT
By definition, isn't "semi-automatic assault weapon" an oxymoron?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top