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!

===================================================

It is absolutely critical that everyone contact their Representative about this to oppose it, for the reasons stated above.

It is even more critical that any constitutents of Rep. McCarthy (Phone: (202) 225-2601; FAX: 225-1589 ) contact her and roundly condemn this proposed "law".

Find your Rep at: http://www.theorator.com/government/house.html and contact them by FAX and phone. A sample letter can be found here:

http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm - you can simply c&p it into a FAX. Pete

Anyone who tries to bring in such legislation will be shot

Grogan

LOL

Dave101

"The only goddamn thing you know about the law is how to break it." Chief Lafleche

Trying to make sure it doesn't come to that, actually. Pete

"When fascism comes to America it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington


Very true, when it was written. In this day and age, pure poppycock. Can you really envision the citizenry of the United States, no matter how well armed individually, overthrowing the government, law-enforcement agencies and armed forces. I don't think so.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but
they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a
status of independence

Nightly Reader

Any hunter that needs an assault rifle is NO hunter.


Edit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/

Ed W.

"IN GOD WE still TRUST - ALL OTHERS, WE used to MONITOR"

Granted. All I'm suggesting (without getting into the other pros and cons) is that this is no longer a valid argument for or against weapon control in the USA.

When will they get around to banning "assault pistols, assault hammers, assault scissors, assault rocks, assault two by fours, and such." Outlawing an inaminate object will never prevent people from destroying other people if they really want to do so. I do not understand the mentality of those idiots we elect. Instead of doing something worthwhile they, for a large part, are bent on telling us what we can eat, how we can live,what we can say, what products we can use in building, and what we can do with land we have paid dearly for. Freedom is disappearing at a rapid rate.

Well... it is considerably more difficult for a person to commit a murder with scissors than with an assualt rifle. My guess is that the Columbine tragedy would have been restricted to one or only a few victims if the perpetrators were using scissors.

Write back the next time a loved one of YOURS goes to a shopping mall and gets gunned down by someone on a rampage with an assault rifle. My guess is that you would rather that they had a two-by-four...

This does not apply to you, Pete, but it is striking how many people who support the Patriot Act are opposed to gun control. They are giving away vital civil rights which are much more valuable than the right to bear arms, but want to keep their guns. Those guns, as Paul rightly points out, are without use in terms of resisting an industrialized government. And their support of the Patriot Act make it much more likely that they will need defense from the government...

Luckily a wave of sanity is sweeping through politics. Next year the democrats take the executive and the legislative branches!