THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban
On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."

McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994.  Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse.  H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense.  H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")

. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."

. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers.  Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!  

You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

Does anybody know if this has a grandfather clause like the last one.  If you have one that will be considered pre-ban, if this goes into effect, will it be regulated by this ban.  Or will it only apply to new purchases.  It may be time to stock up on accessories, along with guns, if they will be legal to use after a ban is put in place.  For an example will a collapseable stock be legal on a pre-ban owned gun, even after the ban is in place.  Or are all these AR pistols soon to be ilegal to own, even if they were purchased / built before the ban?  

My understanding would be that if you already own it you can keep it, but never sell it or get rid of it. They would be non transferable.  


I've got one word for Mc Carthy.


CUNT!

be sure to write/email representative Steve King. He is on the judiciary committee.  if it can be killed in committee, then it will never even be voted on

SHIT I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN  I FUCKING HATE DEMOCRATS



Im going to call all of the news stations and try to get something going on or at least the news papers. This is fucking bullshit. I hope that lady knows how many enemies with guns she just made.

We had this discussion on another board.  My take is be vigilant, contact your rep, but don't panic.

Several factors to consider.  First, McCarthy is one of the least effective reps in the house.  Nothing that she has ever sponsored has become law.   Only three bills of hers have ever made it out of committee. Two, the last time the dems tried this they lost both the house and the senate.  Due in large part to the original AWB.  They haven't forgotten that.  Most privately admit gun control costs them more votes than it gains.  Third, it still has to get thru the senate.  The minority party in the house is virtually powerless.   In the senate the minority commands great power, especially in as closely divided senate as we now have.  Fourth, it needs a presidential autograph.  GW may not be our strongest supporter but I don't see him signing off on something this draconian.  And fifth, this sort of thing is the greatest recruiting tool the NRA (and others) can have.  The dems know that as well.  

This bill or something like it comes up every session.  SO FAR, nothing has come of it.  But like I said, stay vigilant, stay involved, and contact your reps and let them know you're feelings.  Be polite, to the point, and brief.  And use email.  With the anthrax screening procedures, snail mail literally takes months to cycle thru the system.  

Quoted: ...but don't panic.

+1

this is a "look, i tried to ban guns, but the NRA and the gun nuts stomped it" bill, for plausible deniability in the interests of those who'd listen.

this has a snowballs chance in hell.  still, contacting your rep in a polite and courteous fashion isn't a bad idea.

be civil and represent us well!