Steyr Club Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

not up on Thomas.loc.gov yet

10th U.S. Congress (2007-2008)
H.R. 1022: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes

Bill Overview
Introduced: Feb 13, 2007
Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]
Cosponsors (no cosponsors) Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.
Last Action: Feb 13, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
I wonder what goodies this bitch has planned under the title of "and for other purposes"



GOD I'm getting tired.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
338 Posts
Thanks Zundfolge for letting us know what McCarthy is up to now.

Sent her a message through her website encouraging her to reconsider her support for another piece of "assault weapon" ban legislation.

Don't expect it to make a difference, but...

I am writing to encourage you to reconsider your support for legislation banning "assault weapons". All weapons by their very nature can be used to assault others. It doesn't matter to the victim if the blow comes from a rock to the back of the head or a piece of lead or the bumper of a vehicle.

Every day millions of people safely handle 1 ton plus vehicles capable of mass destruction without using them to kill others, unfortunately there are a few exceptions but the solution to road rage and negligence does not lie in banning cars it lies in holding people responsible for their actions. There are millions of firearms in this country, we should prosecute those who misuse them not those who possess them.

It might be nice to think that banning rocks and other assault weapons will prevent people from killing each other but it won't. We must encourage personal responsibilty and accountability in this country and stop blaming inanimate objects and giving killers excuses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
925 Posts
Notice that there are no co-sponsers for this bill.

This thing will die in committee.

I mean I will not put it past the Democrats to sink themselves for the 2008 election with an anti-Second Amendment bill, but even President Bill Clinton acknowledged that the gun lobby lead to the 1994 Republican victory.

I think the Democrats are going to try and play it safe with firearms or at least I hope they have an interest in self-preservation.

The import thing is to find out what committe it goes in front of and then try to email the members so that it dies.

We've got something we didn't have in the 1990s (to this extent) the internet.

Thanks for the post.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
338 Posts
looks as if this abomination is starting to get a little traction - nearly 10% of the House has signed on as co sponsors and it has moved out of the judiciary committee. Here's hoping it stalls and withers away.

The bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, and then to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on March 19, 2007.[1] While there were no cosponsors originally, the bill gained 34 co-sponsors by March 22, 2007. An additional seven cosponsors signed on after the April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre.[2]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ct_of_2007
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,817 Posts
We'll see how much lying the "Blue Dog" Democrats were doing in their campaigns when they said they were "conservative" and "pro-gun".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
I heard from my gun dealer that the federal government is planning on banning 5.7mm and .17HMR ammo because it is armor piercing. I didn't do any research, but has anyone else heard this?
 
G

·
somewhwere over on THR political forms there is a link to this bill to ban the 5.7 and "other" A.P. rounds as defined by..."?".

It has been introduced and is worded very open ended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
they only pierce armor when they're fired at armor.

and firing them at someone wearing body armor is allready illegal.

why do we need new laws when we can't enforce the ones we have?

what we should do is ban sportscars. what's the point of having a vehicel capable of handling adequately at 150 mph+? they only exist to endanger those who use the road responsibly!!

every car should be governed to a top speed of 75 mph. that would save 10x more lives than any gun ban of any type.

try getting that bill through congress.

as i read it, the 2A is all about the people's right to defend themselves from a tyranical gov't. if the tyranical gov't is going to wear body armor, shouldn't we be allowed the opportunity to defend ourselves effectively?

this stuff makes me sick.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
338 Posts
as i read it, the 2A is all about the people's right to defend themselves from a tyranical gov't. if the tyranical gov't is going to wear body armor, shouldn't we be allowed the opportunity to defend ourselves effectively?
Absolutely!

Hopefully, most people will realize this is just another attempt by the gun grabbers to exploit ignorance and create needless fear in the minds of those folks who don't realize that most high powered hunting cartridges will pierce armor and that armor piercing capability has existed for generations. shucks, I've seen 60+ year old lake city out of my M1 go though steel plate like it was going through butter.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,652 Posts
McCarthy's latest gun grab

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-Fang Gun Owners-New York) has come up with an end run for her latest gun grab that has already passed the House and might sneak it's way through the Senate without even a vote. And even the NRA has signed on!

Gun-control bill not the solution, says firearms group
Rusty Pugh and Jody Brown

A gun-ownership rights group says liberal, anti-gun lawmakers have succeeded in passing another gun-control bill through the U.S. House -- and according to the group, a leading anti-gun senator hopes to do the same thing in the Senate, but without a vote.

Promoters of the bill, authored by Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-New York), claim the measure strengthens the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which regulates handgun purchases. Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York) is pushing for passage of the McCarthy bill through the Senate on what is called a "unanimous consent agreement" without a vote by the entire body.

The measure has the backing of the National Rifle Association, whose chief lobbyist told The Washington Post that he feels it is "good policy" and "good politics" to keep firearms out of the hands of the "mentally adjudicated" -- an element of the McCarthy bill. But Chris Cox warned that if the measure becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it makes its way through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.
Here's the whole story: http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/06/gun_control_bill_not_the_solut.php
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,817 Posts
This republic is in serious trouble when legislators can end-run the citizens with cute parlimentary devices and not fear reprisal.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,652 Posts
Just got this from NRA-ILA explaining the NRA position on the bill.

On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Act," by a voice vote. H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA's decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

While the media continues to characterize this bill as a "gun-control" measure, nothing could be further from the truth. The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and "spinning" the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.

Here are the facts: H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records. Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.

The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible. While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms.
http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.2147.2.3013175
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,652 Posts
NICS Update

Just got the following update on the NICS bill from NRA-ILA. It's a bit long, but gives the myths vs. truths on it all.

THE NICS IMPROVEMENT BILL: MYTH AND REALITY

Some opponents of the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" (H.R. 2640) have spent the last several months painting a picture of the bill that would rightly terrify gun owners-if it was true.

The opponents' motive seems to be a totally unrealistic hope of undercutting or repealing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by ensuring that its records are inaccurate and incomplete. But make no mistake-an inaccurate and incomplete system only serves to delay and burden lawful gun buyers, while failing to screen those who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Nonetheless, opponents of H.R. 2640 continue to spread misconceptions about the bill. The following are some of the common myths.
MYTH: "Millions of Americans will awake one day and find that they are suddenly barred from buying guns based upon decades old convictions of 'misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence,' or mental health adjudications that were later rescinded or expired."

FACT: H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons." The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons. H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.

Also, H.R. 2640-for the first time-specifies that mental health adjudications may not be reported if they've been expunged, or if the person has received relief from the adjudication under the procedures required by the bill. In those cases, the mental adjudication or commitment "shall be deemed not to have occurred," and therefore would not prohibit the person from possessing firearms.
MYTH: "As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be prohibited from owning firearms-based solely on a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder."

FACT: The only veterans who would be reported to NICS under this bill due to mental health issues are-as with civilians-those who are adjudicated as incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

A diagnosis alone is never enough; the person must be "adjudicated as a mental defective," which is a legal term that implies a fair hearing process. The Veterans' Administration has regulations that provide veterans with an opportunity for a hearing on those decisions, and an opportunity for multiple appeals-just as a civilian does in state court. Any records that don't meet this standard could not be reported to NICS, and any deficient records that have already been provided would have to be removed.

Veteran and journalist Larry Scott (operator of the website http://www.vawatchdog.org) calls the allegation about veterans a "huge campaign of misinformation and scare tactics." Scott points out that thousands of veterans who receive mental health care through the VA-but have not been found incompetent or involuntarily committed-are not currently reported to NICS, and wouldn't be reported under H.R. 2640. (Scott's analysis is available online at http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202 ... html?wh=wh.)

Last, but not least, H.R. 2640 also provides veterans and others their first opportunity in 15 years to seek "relief from disabilities" through either state or federal programs. Currently, no matter how successfully a person responds to treatment, there is no way for a person "adjudicated" incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution to seek restoration of the right to possess a firearm.
MYTH: A child who has been diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder "can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult." "Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance)."

FACT: Again, a psychiatric or medical diagnosis alone is not an "adjudication" or "commitment."

Critics base their concern on BATFE regulations that define an "adjudication" to include a decision by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority." They claim any doctor could potentially be a "lawful authority."

They are wrong. Not even the Clinton Administration took such an extreme position. In fact, the term "lawful authority" was apparently intended to cover various types of government panels that are similar to "courts, boards, or commissions." Basic principles of legal interpretation require reading it that way. The term also doesn't override the basic constitutional protections that come into play in decisions about a person's mental health.

Finally, records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws, which H.R. 2640 also does not override.
MYTH: People who get voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would be prohibited from possessing guns.

FACT: Again, current BATFE regulations make clear that voluntary commitments do not affect a person's right to arms. NRA (and, surely, the medical community) would vehemently oppose any proposal that would punish or deter a person getting needed voluntary treatment.
MYTH: A Pennsylvania man lost his right to possess firearms due to an "offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark."

FACT: This case does not hold up to close investigation. The person made comments on a college campus that were interpreted as threatening in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy; he was then briefly sent to a mental institution.

Opponents, however, have failed to mention that the man had been the subject of chronic complaints from his neighbors. (The "filth, mold, [and] mildew" in his apartment were so bad that the town declared it unfit for human habitation.) After his brief hospital stay, he was arrested for previously pointing a gun at his landlord and wiretapping his neighbors.

Despite these facts, it also appears he was only committed for a brief period of observation. Current BATFE regulations say that the term "committed to a mental institution" "does not include a person in a mental institution for observation." Therefore, even in this extreme case, the person may not ultimately be prohibited from possessing firearms. Second Amendment scholar Clayton Cramer describes this case in a recent Shotgun News column (available online at http://www.claytoncramer.com/PopularMag ... 202640.htm) and reaches the same conclusion.
MYTH: "Relief from disability" provisions would require gun owners to spend a fortune in legal fees to win restoration of rights.

FACT: Relief programs are not that complicated. When BATFE (then just BATF) operated the relief from disabilities program, the application was a simple two-page form that a person could submit on his own behalf. The bureau approved about 60% of valid applications from 1981-91.

Pro-gun attorney Evan Nappen points out that the most extreme anti-gun groups now oppose H.R. 2640 simply because of the relief provisions. Nappen includes a sampling of their comments in his article on the bill ("Enough NRA Bashing"), available online at http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing.
MYTH: The bill's "relief from disability" provisions are useless because Congress has defunded the "relief" program.

FACT: The current ban on processing relief applications wouldn't affect this bill. The appropriations rider (promoted in 1992 by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)) only restricts expenditures by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. H.R. 2640 requires relief programs to be set up and operated by agencies that make adjudications or commitments related to people's mental health. BATFE doesn't do that, but other agencies-especially the Veterans' Administration-do. Naturally, NRA would strongly oppose any effort to remove funding from new "relief" programs set up under this widely supported bill.
MYTH: The bill must be anti-gun, because it was co-sponsored by anti-gun Members of Congress.

FACT: By this unreasonable standard, any bill with broad support in Congress must be a bad idea. NRA believes in working with legislators of all political persuasions if the end result will benefit lawful gun owners. Anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) supported arming airline pilots against terrorists, but that program was (and is) a good idea nonetheless.
MYTH: The bill "was hatched in secret .and passed out of the House without even a roll call."

FACT: No one asked for a roll call vote. This is not unusual. The House voted on H.R. 2640 under "suspension of the rules," which allows passing widely supported bills by a two-thirds vote. (This procedure also helps prevent amendments-which in this case helped prevent anti-gun legislators from turning the bill into a "Christmas tree" for their agenda.)

After a debate in which only one House member opposed the bill, the House passed the bill by a voice vote. There is never a recorded vote in the House without a request from a House member. No one asked for one on H.R. 2640, again showing the widespread support for the bill.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top