Democrats attempt to renew assault weapons ban. Truth about H.R.1022

brett636

Well-Known Member
Now that the democrats are back in power they have already picked up where they left off back in 1994 regarding restricting our rights to certain fire arms. The assault weapons ban of 1994 expired in 2004, and now that the dems are back in power they are attempting to renew and expand the original bill. This has no sunset clause, and covers a much broader spectrum of weapons than the 1994 AWB. Here is a news article about it.

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.

If this angers you as much as me please write your congressman/woman and tell them to vote no to this bill. Its currently in committee and is gaining steam picking up several co-sponsors both democrat and republican. Our president has said he would renew such a ban if it comes across his desk and it looks like this is the first serious attempt at doing so. Go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and tell your representative to vote NO to H.R. 1022 should it ever hit the house floor.
 

SeniorGeek

Below the Line
Now that the democrats are back in power they have already picked up where they left off back in 1994 regarding restricting our rights to certain fire arms. The assault weapons ban of 1994 expired in 2004, and now that the dems are back in power they are attempting to renew and expand the original bill. This has no sunset clause, and covers a much broader spectrum of weapons than the 1994 AWB. Here is a news article about it.



If this angers you as much as me please write your congressman/woman and tell them to vote no to this bill. Its currently in committee and is gaining steam picking up several co-sponsors both democrat and republican. Our president has said he would renew such a ban if it comes across his desk and it looks like this is the first serious attempt at doing so. Go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and tell your representative to vote NO to H.R. 1022 should it ever hit the house floor.
If it does pass, do not count on the President to veto it. After all, he wanted to renew the 1994 AWB in 2004:
WorldNetDaily: Gun-control senators cheer Bush
As I Predicted, G.W. Bush Is Backing the Clinton Gun Ban
 

Overpaid Union Thug

🇺🇸 Let’s Go Brandon! 🇺🇸
And where is the ACLU when someone really needs them? My guess is they are out breaking the crosses of graves or in court defending child rapists.
 

satellitedriver

Moderator
Now that the democrats are back in power they have already picked up where they left off back in 1994 regarding restricting our rights to certain fire arms. The assault weapons ban of 1994 expired in 2004, and now that the dems are back in power they are attempting to renew and expand the original bill. This has no sunset clause, and covers a much broader spectrum of weapons than the 1994 AWB. Here is a news article about it.



If this angers you as much as me please write your congressman/woman and tell them to vote no to this bill. Its currently in committee and is gaining steam picking up several co-sponsors both democrat and republican. Our president has said he would renew such a ban if it comes across his desk and it looks like this is the first serious attempt at doing so. Go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and tell your representative to vote NO to H.R. 1022 should it ever hit the house floor.
Yes, I agree with you.
The real focus in the future(IMHO) will be banning certain types of bullets, if not all. A backdoor approach to fullfill the goal.
I truly believe that guns do not kill people. It is the person that pulls the trigger.
 

Channahon

Well-Known Member
I truly believe that guns do not kill people. It is the person that pulls the trigger.

Has a gun ever killed a person without another person pulling the trigger???
 

canon

Well-Known Member
I truly believe that guns do not kill people. It is the person that pulls the trigger.

Has a gun ever killed a person without another person pulling the trigger???
Cool... I love questions with 50/50 odds. I'm going to say yes.

In cases of suicide "another person" does not pull the trigger, yet someone dies.
 
B

Banned Poster

Guest
This bill has no chance of getting out of committee.

It should be noted that Rep. McCarthy is elected to represent her district, and has the support of her constituents. Her platform consisted mainly of gun control, and she was overwhelmingly reelected.

It should also be noted that Rep. McCarthy had her husband murdered and her son severely wounded by a crazy man with a gun. This prompted the life long Republican to run for Congress a a liberal Democrat.
 

tonyexpress

Whac-A-Troll Patrol
Staff member
A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long- standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia. :wink:


Appeals Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban
 

satellitedriver

Moderator
I truly believe that guns do not kill people. It is the person that pulls the trigger.

Has a gun ever killed a person without another person pulling the trigger???
Yes it has.
Dropping it while loaded has led to alot of fatal incidents. So remember to always keep a a firm grip.
 

canon

Well-Known Member
I'm impressed you are the only one that caugt the trick question.

I'm insulted that you're impressed that I caught it. In addition to building an immunity to Iocane powder, I also studied the intricacies of backhanded compliments.
75419455.jpg
 

Channahon

Well-Known Member
I'm insulted that you're impressed that I caught it. In addition to building an immunity to Iocane powder, I also studied the intricacies of backhanded compliments.
75419455.jpg
Get out of here. I would not insult you, I thought we had a relationship. You know mutual respect for one another. Now you I'm crushed again. I'm starting to feel like an ex-wife.
 

tieguy

Banned
Get out of here. I would not insult you, I thought we had a relationship. You know mutual respect for one another. Now you I'm crushed again. I'm starting to feel like an ex-wife.

gag.:w00t:

I've always supported a persons right to bear arms to defend his property and family but I have a hard time justifying ownership of assault weapons.
 

SeniorGeek

Below the Line
I've always supported a persons right to bear arms to defend his property and family but I have a hard time justifying ownership of assault weapons.
It must be the word "assault". It makes it sound as if the only use of the weapon would be to attack...so that must make it the wrong choice for defense. But what is an assault weapon? There is no single, one-size-fits-all answer...until it is legislated.

It's strange how words can bend our thoughts. When politicians talk about "exploring for oil" it's like a man talking about exploring a woman's body. You know they are really talking about drilling.

Back to the 2nd Amendment: Caroline Kennedy enlightened me about the 2nd Amendment in one of her many books about the US Constitution. She pointed out that most everyone interprets the 2nd Amendment in one manner, and all the other Amendments in the opposite manner. That is, those who say it grants gun rights narrowly - to the military only - usually interpret all the other Amendments as granting rights broadly - even to non-citizens, women, non-Christians, non-whites and other groups that have not been allowed to exercise these rights at some time. Those who say the 2nd Amendment grants broad rights usually interpret the other Amendments as granting limited rights.

She also pointed out that some ACLU officials have admitted that they should fight for 2nd Amendment rights, but their membership tends to be from the "narrow-interpretation-of-2nd/broad-interpretation-of-the-other-24ish" camp. [I do not recall if she pointed out that the 2nd Amendment is defended by an organization with 10 times as many members as the ACLU. I think she did not point out that the ACLU does not deal with some of the other Amendments that have larger organizations supporting them. For example, the 18th is defended by MADD (about 7 times as many members as ACLU) and the 21st by business interests.]

That chapter about the 2nd Amendment made me think she had come to realize that her own stance had been flawed - that she had been reading the Amendments inconsistently. But she did not come out and say it. It was the shortest chapter in the book.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
"...but I have a hard time justifying ownership of assault weapons."

Here in The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, I can only have a 10 round clip in my carry gun. Otherwise it would be an "assault weapon". What a crock of sh**! Gun companies actually make special reduced clips for Massachusetts. Makes me proud to be a resident.

Criminals and police officers can have whatever they want, but the law-abiding citizen trying to protect his family is restricted to 10 shots.

Makes me ill.
 

toonertoo

Most Awesome Dog
Staff member
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CERTIFIED WEAPONS OWNERS HAVING ASSAULT RIFLES.
People who use them in legal ways, or as a part of a collection. And that is the only people it will affect.

The loser on the street, spraying an assault, multi shot weapon, into a group of people on a street corner, is the only ones who will have them, and they are the reason your rights to bear are being infringed upon.

We had a zero tolerance in the town where I deliver for about 30 days, cops everywhere, city and ohio state troopers, the streets were bare. Guess what? back to 100% tolerance in the last few days, havent seen a cop, crime as usual.. and another gang member dead, how sad, Not, wish they would all just kill each other and leave the rest of us alone.
I was never scared of an assault rifle owned by a legal gun owner.
 
Top