Quoted: Quoted: Repealing the NFA would be nice, but any smaller step in weakening it would be a step in the right direstion: -repeal the 1986 full-auto ban. Taking it one step further... since a complete removal would probably be too big to swallow... just knock off the part about manufacturing "new" machines guns

In other words, repeal the 1986 full-auto ban.

well @ least congressman Wamp from TN seems to understand


 

Dear Gary :

 

There are important steps we can take to ensure the security of our citizens without trampling all over the U.S. Constitution. Thank you for contacting me about your Second Amendment rights.

 

Guns do not commit crimes, people do. Washington DC, where it is illegal to own a handgun, proves that we do not need more gun control, we need more crime control. In Washington, the "bad guys" have guns and the law abiding citizens do not. Hard data clearly shows that gun control does not work.

 

One of the rights specifically protected in our bill of rights, second only to the freedom of speech is that "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Constitution is clear about this. I will continue to support and vote for legislation that protects your right to bear arms.

 



Warmest Regards,

Zach Wamp
Member of Congress

is this something that we still need to pursue?
if so, i'll try and get a few emails fired out myself to my reps in Az - i'm sure someone over in hometown has a "form letter" to use

Quoted: is this something that we still need to pursue?

We could just sit quietly and watch, while it's supporters try to get enough public support and media coverage to push it through Congress.

Just a few days ago, the local paper ran an article, written by a "sportsman", about how the "Assault Weapon Ban" reinstatement was a "no-brainer" that was supported by national law enforcement organizations and would have absolutely no impact on hunters.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Repealing the NFA would be nice, but any smaller step in weakening it would be a step in the right direstion: -repeal the 1986 full-auto ban. Taking it one step further... since a complete removal would probably be too big to swallow... just knock off the part about manufacturing "new" machines guns In other words, repeal the 1986 full-auto ban.

Doesn't the ban include importation?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Repealing the NFA would be nice, but any smaller step in weakening it would be a step in the right direstion: -repeal the 1986 full-auto ban. Taking it one step further... since a complete removal would probably be too big to swallow... just knock off the part about manufacturing "new" machines guns In other words, repeal the 1986 full-auto ban. Doesn't the ban include importation?

It's been a while since I read the legislation that created that ban, but if I'm not mistaken it was simply a prohibition from adding any more full-auto firearms to the NFA registry.  Domestic, foreign, even old firearms that hadn't yet been surplused out of the military - none of them could be given an NFA transfer stamp, unless they were already (in June of 1986) in the NFA registry.

Since everyone's doing it, I will share my letter... enjoy...

President Bush (et al),

I need your help in defeating H.R. 1022, a proposed bill to effectively disarm the American public in fashion reminiscent of the former Soviet Union. This proposition takes aim directly at my inalienable right to defense of self, family, and property, as well as the US Constitution itself. H.R. 1022 and other bills like it are aimed at attacking the very core principles our nation was founded under and has successfully operated with for centuries. Those who back such treasonous action are no friend to a free and liberty-driven society and must be stopped.

Proponents of federal gun control, the movement to systematically revoke one’s right to bear arms, have been trying to introduce legislation that would leave every citizen defenseless against possible tyranny of the federal government. The right to bear arms is afforded every citizen of the United States of America by The Constitution through The Bill of Rights. The great importance of this right, stated in the Second Amendment to The Constitution, is very apparent, as it was required to be added before the Constitution could be completely ratified.

The Right to Bear Arms
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (United States Constitution, Second Amendment)

This small part of the country-defining document known as The United States Constitution provides a guaranteed defense against a possible tyrannical central government. Although some reviewers have tried to tear the Second Amendment apart, saying each piece applies to a different right, the Amendment must be looked at as a whole to understand the intention of the author. The first part, “A well-regulated Militia” refers to an organized group of people, which is either regulated by the State or by the Militia itself. The next part, “being necessary to the security of a free State,” allows for the use of a well-regulated Militia to protect the freedoms granted the people by The Constitution or more specifically The Bill of Rights. The next section, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” re-iterates the previous sections with a specific reference of the means and reference to membership of a “well-regulated Militia,” the people. There is no mention of what arms can or must be. In fact, taken in direct context, this allows for keeping and bearing anything from a sharpened stone to a handgun to a backyard cannon, which indeed where all three in existence at the time of the Bill of Rights and could easily be related to commonly found weapons exiting today. Finally, the last part, “shall not be infringed,” is pretty simple to understand; it basically states that these rights cannot be taken away, no room for negotiation. In legal terms, the word “shall” is used to mean no allowance for deviation.

America’s Founding Fathers
Although most gun control advocates like to write into or take away from its very clear and concise verbiage, America’s Founding Fathers’ specific purpose for the Second Amendment was to protect the people from governmental tyranny. Statements regarding an armed populace, from the Founding Fathers’ are found in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Federalist Papers. John Marciano gives a few examples: George Mason states, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them", and Andrew Fletcher stated, "Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave" (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1707). The Founding Fathers were very specific in the rights they were giving the people through the Bill of Rights, rights to remain a free citizens. In fact, the specific cause for creation of the US Constitution and the Bill of rights was to protect the people from governmental stripping of liberty as intended by H.R. 1022 and the prior AWB, which in simple terms was a witch-hunt to disarm law-aiding US Citizens.

A Country with out Gun Ownership
History has proven that countries, whose citizens are not afforded the right to keep and bear arms, are more susceptible to tyrannical rule and violent crime. When citizens yield all power to the government, a window of opportunity opens for the misdeeds of those that would weald this power for their own gain. Pierre Lemieux points to one such example of tyranny, The Vichy Regime of 1942 to 1944 (Lemieux, 1992). During the Second World War, the total German occupation of France resulted in thousands of Jewish people being arrested by their own French police, in order to be shipped to Nazi death camps. A right to keep and bear arms might have prevented the atrocities that occurred to those Jewish people who were never seen again.

Some pundits of gun control argue that preventing violent crime is the motivating force behind their actions. The argument usually sites theoretical figures of a would-be utopia where people are not allowed to own guns. These pundits state that if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. The facts prove otherwise. Guns do not commit gun crime; violent people commit violent crime with whatever means available. A bill to ban the ownership of all handguns in England, that was supposed to limit gun crime, was voted on and passed by the Members of the English Parliament (Copley, 1997). A recent study in London showed a threefold increase of crimes committed with the use of a gun, in one year, from February 2001 to February 2002. Statistics produced by the Internal Home Office, in February 2002, show handgun crime to be at its highest level since 1993 (Bamber, 2002). Laws only affect law-abiding individuals. The effect on law-abiding individuals is one of disadvantage, against criminals that will continue to commit gun crimes.

Conclusion
The Second Amendment was added to The Bill of Rights, do to a genuine fear that the central government would become too powerful and controlling. This right also limits violent crime, and provides every citizen an avenue of defense against would-be predators. The movement to revoke one’s right to keep and bear arms cannot be allowed to continue, and create a state of fear or uncertainty of the central (federal) government. Thomas Jefferson said it best, "When the government fears the People, that is Liberty. When the People fear the Government, that is tyranny" (Bamber, 2002).

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I hope to see effectual action from your office on this matter.


References
Bamber, D. (2002, Feb. 24). Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities. Retrieved February 5, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.guncontrolnetwork.org/uk8.htm
Copley, J. (1997, June 12). MPs vote to ban all handguns. UK News. Retrieved February 5, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/06/12/ngunn12.html
Lemieux, P. (1992, Sept. 8). Gun control: what are the real issues. Retrieved February 4, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaim.html
Marciano, J. J. (n.d.). Handgun control, inc discredits itself. Retrieved February 4, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1707

I have been a police officer for over 10 yrs. In that time I think I have had 1 legal gun used in an alleged crime and it was an old S&W revolver. These gun bans are a total joke and do nothing to deter crime what so ever. If you read through some of the 2006 FBI reports you will find that they did a study and they stated the same thing. This is just aother way for big brother to get a tighter choke hold on us. Sadly enough it will probaly pass on some level with the sad state this country is in, frankly it just makes me sick.  America home of the repressed.

I got two replies from my elected oficials...

Dear Mr. CB1

Thank you for contacting me about federal firearms laws. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

It is essential to safeguard the law-abiding citizen's right to own and use firearms designed for legitimate purposes such as hunting, target shooting, collecting, and self protection. Restricting this right runs counter to the intent of our Founding Fathers, who expressly guaranteed that citizens would retain the right to keep and bear arms.

As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must respect the rights of law-abiding citizens and focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law and meting out longer sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes will reduce crime much more effectively than gun or equipment bans.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue working with my colleagues to uphold our Second Amendment rights. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

and this one kicks ass!

March 1, 2007

Dear Mr. CB1
Thank you for contacting me about gun ownership rights.  I appreciate
hearing your views on this important matter.

I am strongly opposed to any limitations on the United States
Constitution's Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.  
While no one condones the purchase and use of guns by felons or other
high-risk individuals to perpetrate any crime, we must not improperly
hamper the right of law-abiding citizens to bear or purchase arms.  If
we are to honor and uphold our nation's Constitution, this right cannot
be infringed.

The key to curbing the unlawful use of firearms is the stricter
enforcement of existing laws.  There are about 20,000 firearms laws
already on the books in this country.  To prevent crime, we must fully
enforce those laws already on the books.  I am disappointed to see that
the laws currently being considered by Congress are merely an attempt
to make people feel more secure without providing any real security.  
Someone who is truly bent on using a gun to commit a crime will find a
way to obtain one regardless of what laws are imposed.  We cannot
erode our constitutional rights in the name of crime prevention, and I
will oppose any legislation that seeks to do so.  
                       
You may be interested to know that I voted in favor of H.R. 1036, The
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which passed the U.S.
House of Representatives on April 9, 2003 by a vote of 285-140.  This
legislation acted to protect the firearm industry from lawsuits arising
out of the criminal or unlawful acts of people who criminally or
unlawfully misuse their products.  
     
Please be assured that I will continue to pay very close attention to the
continuing debate on gun ownership rights.  While I am not a member
of the House Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over
gun control legislation, you may be assured that I will keep your views
in mind should additional relevant legislation be considered by the full
House.  I will not waiver in my convictions on these issues.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.  I appreciate having
the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. House of
Representatives.  Please feel free to visit my website
(www.house.gov/burgess) or contact me with any future concerns.
Sincerely,  

Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Member of Congress

Quoted: Quoted: is this something that we still need to pursue? We could just sit quietly and watch, while it's supporters try to get enough public support and media coverage to push it through Congress. Just a few days ago, the local paper ran an article, written by a "sportsman", about how the "Assault Weapon Ban" reinstatement was a "no-brainer" that was supported by national law enforcement organizations and would have absolutely no impact on hunters.

The person that said it was a no brainer and would have no impact on hunters obviously never even took the time to read the proposed bill.

I don't know if this has been posted, and I'm not sure if this is the best place, but here is a petition we should all sign in opposition to the bill:
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348?ltl=1172828648

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: is this something that we still need to pursue? We could just sit quietly and watch, while it's supporters try to get enough public support and media coverage to push it through Congress. Just a few days ago, the local paper ran an article, written by a "sportsman", about how the "Assault Weapon Ban" reinstatement was a "no-brainer" that was supported by national law enforcement organizations and would have absolutely no impact on hunters. The person that said it was a no brainer and would have no impact on hunters obviously never even took the time to read the proposed bill.

Doesn't matter.  The end result is that the newspaper's readers now know everything they need to know to write their representatives and state their opinion on the bill.  If one of the local TV stations picks up the story, then there'll be even more people who will know enough about the bill that they won't have to bother to read it.  

After all, if the news media is saying it's a no-brainer, and national law enforcement organizations say it will fight crime, isn't that enough knowledge to safely ignore those extremist gunnuts who are opposed to it?

I think something needs to be pointed out, and everyone should address it.

The Clinton Bill and the McCarthy Bill have put a real, real bad spin on what is
an assault weapon and what is not. Weapons that look like an assault weapon
are lbeing labeled as such.

First, the Liberal mind labeled any weapon with any capacity at all an assault weapon. Now, they are trying to label all firearms an assault weaponAssault weapons by there very nature are fully automatic. Any veteran of the military will tell you that. The guns most of us own or want are NOT fully automatic, they are semi-automatic. Fully automatic assault weapons are M16's, MA2's, SAW's, M60's, and other machine guns. Semi-automatic rifles are all carbines, not machine guns. Pull the trigger, one shot is what you get. Period.

The media put the assault weapon spin on guns during the Clinton regime, and spitting
it out and spitting it out, the public got this drummed into it's head enough that it coined the same spin, which is a travesty.

We should point this out when writing our Representatives, Senators, and the President.
When we talk of this with others, we should point this out. We should do what we can
to take the spin off of the subject, since the spin makes it worse.

ATTENTION WHOEVER CARES  !!!!
(That should be about everyone)

There's an online petition against the pending AWB/HR-1022.  We all need to sign it and help get this unconstitutional peice of craphttp://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348?ltl=1172853189
Thanks

Signed

I signed and forwarded it to all of my shooting buddies!

Lets all give her office a call and tell her or her employees that we don't the ban.


DC Phone: 202-225-5516

Information on
Representative Carolyn McCarthy
of Congressional District number 4 of New York
 
Extended Contact Information Political Profile
DC Address: The Honorable Carolyn McCarthy
United States House of Representatives
106 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3204
DC Phone: 202-225-5516
DC Fax: 202-225-5758
Email Address: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
WWW Homepage: http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/

District Office:
   200 Garden City Plaza, Suite 320
Garden City, NY 11530  Voice: 516-739-3008
FAX: 516-739-2973  
  to Garden City office from Google Maps  

Party: Democrat
Leadership: None
Freshman: No
Voting History: Click here   NEW
First Elected To Office: November 5, 1996
Year of Next Election: November 4, 2008
Previous Political Work: None or Not Available
Committee Membership:
  House Committee on Education and Labor - 8
   Subcommittee on Health Employment Labor and Pensions - 4
   Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities - Chair
House Committee on Financial Services - 16
   Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit - 11
   Subcommittee on Capital Markets Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises - 8
   Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations - 8



Office Staff Personal Bio
Chief of Staff: Rob Recklaus
Executive Assistant: Shannon Carlin
Legislative Director: Bob Dobek
Communications Director: George Burke
Gender: Female
Hometown: Mineola
Birth: On January 5, 1944
in Brooklyn
Professional Experience
(including Military): Nurse
Education: LPN, Glen Cove Nursing School

Family: Widowed, 1 child, 2 grandchildren
Faith: Catholic

Quoted: I fired off letters to all 3 of my Congress critters yesterday.  To my knowledge, HR 1022 hasn't yet stained the Senate with its presence, and, with any luck and effort, won't.  All the same, I went ahead and warned my Senators of this piece of horrible legislation, asking that they work to prevent any such shenanigans occurring in the Senate, and vote against HR 1022 in the event things get that far. Below, I humbly submit the body text of my letter to my Representative, should you wish to crib/borrow from/copy it.  Remember to fill in your state, and edit for your Senators if you write them as well.  You may wish to hit different high points of HR 1022 than I did.  There was no way to address all the evils of this bill in a one-page letter. <begin letter text> HR 1022 is a horrible, treasonous bill that would, among other things, criminalize manufacture and sale of practically all semi-automatic firearms, for no good reason and in direct opposition to the US Constitution.  I need your help in defending the Constitution from its domestic enemies, which apparently include Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York, the bill's chief proponent.  I need you to vote against HR 1022, should it slip out of the Judiciary Committee in any form.  I also ask that you speak against any such laws at the first opportunity, and use your influence to prevent further introduction of same in the House when possible. HR 1022 and bills like it are an affront to liberty.  It would be no more effective in its supposed purpose than its predecessor, the poorly-named “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,” a.k.a. “Assault Weapons Ban."  In 2004, AWB  died a well-deserved death, ending – at least on the federal level - a 10-year witch hunt against things which should never have been illegal.  Both during its reign of terror and after its expiration, there has been no evidence to indicate that AWB did anything to control violent crime.  The “no mere civilian needs more than 10 rounds” and “mere civilians can't be trusted with certain weapons” mentality of the AWB is one suited to the former Soviet Union, not the United States of America.  Certainly, AWB did nothing to aid (your state), nor would HR 1022. Enforcing existing laws, and stopping bad laws that would criminalize peaceful citizens, are effective ways to fight crime.  No great intellect is required to realize that violent criminals, by definition, pay no mind to so-called “gun control” laws, or laws in general.  Ridiculous bills like HR 1022 would only further punish honest, peaceful citizens, while doing nothing to curb those who would initiate violence against their fellow man. I am sure I can count on you to uphold your oath of office by voting against HR 1022.  Thanks for serving, and I look forward to hearing from you on this topic. <end letter text>

I used yours and added this near the end...

"Rep. Upton, I put myself on the line in Iraq for a year in 2005 to help secure the rights and liberties of the Iraqi people.  I did not come home to be stripped of my own God-given, Constitutional, Second Amendment rights by a self-righteous, hyper-emotional democrat congresswoman from New York.  Please DO NOT let me down!"

I really hate this crap.

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: She does not do to good ............ 89% fail , Still means we need to fight . 89 haven't made it out of commitee, out of 92.

yeah but 2 did and this could be the bill that fucks everyone

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: She does not do to good ............ 89% fail , Still means we need to fight . 89 haven't made it out of commitee, out of 92. yeah but 2 did and this could be the bill that fucks everyone

Where did you find out how many have made it and how many have not?

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

Check Hitler's view on firearms

Could someone please help me understand something about this bill.

SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

Would that mean that even owning a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds would be illegal?

Quoted: Could someone please help me understand something about this bill. SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE. Would that mean that even owning a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds would be illegal?

I believe so.

Being they want an AWB so damn bad, I wanting a fucking illegal alien ban. And the punishment for being an illegal alien or allowing them to come in our country will be death by hand. I think it's time we take our country back ladies and gentlemen. Start using our Civil Rights as they were intended before they are stripped away.

Quoted: Could someone please help me understand something about this bill. SEC. 7. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE. Would that mean that even owning a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds would be illegal?

There's so many twists and turns to the wording of this bill, with the 'strike' and 'add', but it looks like selling an 'assault weapon' with a 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' would be a felony carrying a penalty of up to 10 years in prison (no more sales of pre-ban guns through dealers or private sales if they are sold with a 'large capacity ammunition feeding device).  

Selling a 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' will require sending documentation, to the US Attorney General, proving that the device was manufactured before the sale (sounds like registration of pre-ban mags).  Failure to provide the required documentation will be a felony with a penalty of 5 years in prison.

ETA: Did a little more digging in the 'strike' and 'add' wording.  Retired law enforcement officers will be guilty of a felony if they do not turn in all their 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices' upon retirement.  Also, the 1994 ban placed the 'burden of proof' for the 'pre-ban' mag issue on the federal government (they had to prove you were selling post-ban mags).  H.R.1022 places the entire 'burden of proof' on the seller.


Section 8 of the bill would make it illegal for a minor to have possession of an 'assault weapon' or a 'large capacity ammunition feeding device', and illegal for anyone to provide the devices to a minor.  There are no exceptions allowed (exceptions are allowed for handgun possession by a minor, such as written parental permission or a requirement for employment, but no exceptions are given for assault weapons or ammo feeding devices).

Section 9 of the bill would ban any importation of pre-ban mags.

Let me add this cause it is also confusing.

`(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

An assualt weapon is already semiautomatic.

Quoted: Let me add this cause it is also confusing. `(37) Conversion Kit- The term `conversion kit' means any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into a semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. An assualt weapon is already semiautomatic.

In other words, a parts kit for an AR-15 or AK47, or any parts that could be added to a non-'assault weapon' firearm to make it an 'assault weapon'.

ETA: If you are in possession of a stripped AR lower (you haven't gotten around to building the rifle, yet) at the time the bill becomes law, it would probably be illegal for you to be in possession of the parts required to build that lower into a complete rifle.

I would like to add that Magpul needs to hurry up and start producing there pmags or no one will be able to buy one. That is if this passes which I do see it passing.

With all the hoopla surrounding this bill, do not the democrats that would foster and nurture it realize that the only true victims in this legislation will be the God fearing, law abiding citizenry.

As a deputy sheriff for the last 11 years, I have come across countless members of the law abiding citizenry who possess weapons of all sorts.  It never ceases to amaze me how fearful they are of this form of legislation.  I wonder why they are so fearful???  Isn't the purpose of this bill to rid the country of demonic firearms???  Firearms that kill and maim people leaving nothing but pandamonium in their wake???

Ohhhh wait... Seems to me that the last time I tested this demonic killer weapon theory I couldn't get the weapon to fire a single round.  I swear, I lay my pistol, shotgun and/or AR-15 on the table, on target, fully loaded and safety off to boot!!!  Not a single round discharged.  Hmmmm...  This seems to me to discredit the theory that these weapons are the problem...  Ohhhhh wait,  You need the human element to pull the trigger to make the weapon work.

Perhaps what the democratic community in our government seems to need to do is control not the weapons, but the people who have them.... Now, I don't mean the John and Jane Does that are responsible, law abiding people, NO!  What I mean, is the people that procure, manufacture, barter, sell, provide in any manner of form, as well as those that possess and use them in a criminalist manner against the law abiding masses.

The Constitution is an evolving document designed by our Forefathers to withstand the tests of time.  The Second Amendment provides for an inalienable right to bear arms.  This means as law abiding citizens, we have the right to own them, use them, and to feel confident that our government will not oppress this right.

The Constitution doesn't distinguish between pistols, revolvers, rifles, and the like, just because it's the flavor of the day opinion.  Once again, the Constitution is a flexible and ever changing, evolving, document that is meant to reflect the era of its interpretation.  BUT, where does interpreting the right to bear arms turn into the right to bear only the arms we, your overlobbied, shallow thinking, underwhelming leaders say you can own.

Quoted: I would like to add that Magpul needs to hurry up and start producing there pmags or no one will be able to buy one.

Oh hell yeah, Im with ya on that one!  


I just e-mailed my Senator, hell I think I even voted for the guy too.  

H.R. 1022 is complete BS.  I know it will die in Comittee but still the damn thing is very alarming.

A friend sent me this link, everyone needs to view it, even those who are anti-gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

This is the worst one ever.  These people just don't give up.  I hope this doesn't make it thru.  If we all make calls and send letters, we can hopefully stop this from going thru.

From what i can gather, the members on the committe are all anti-gun and beleive the 2nd amendment is outdated, and should be done away with altogether. This could come out in a slightly amended easier to pass version. Please write your representatives that you oppose any gun-magazine ban.

Quoted: From what i can gather, the members on the committe are all anti-gun and beleive the 2nd amendment is outdated, and should be done away with altogether. This could come out in a slightly amended easier to pass version. Please write your representatives that you oppose any gun-magazine ban.

Thats exactly what a guy who I work with was saying.  He said they'd make simply a watered-down version because the current version is way too harsh.

Why the hell can't I see shit here?

"You know, it might just be to our ultimate advantage for this to pass into law."


I'm with you, I think its revolution time. Our government's first job is to protect its citizens and its border. How 's that going ? They are selling out our country to the elite with big pockets. How long until our military tanks say made in China on them ? When in the hell is the right to vote going to mean something again if "illegal aliens" can do it so readily ? Now it looks like they are poking at the heart of WHY the second ammendment was written, not just for self defense, but more importantly for the people to have the right to take back control of the government when it is no longer for the people. I am there!

That was the original beauty of the design of the Constitution.  It was designed to be an ever evolving document that would express what our forefathers believed would be the needs of society as it grew through the decades and centuries beyond their existence.

However, we have some liberal people who have somehow found a way to read between the lines of the Second Amendment.    You know, no matter how hard I try I cannot find anything in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that adds a fine print "*" notation instructing the reader to see below for the clause indicating what weapons would eventually become taboo to own by the righteous, God Fearing, law abiding public.

Perhaps what should have been or currently addressed in a fine print clause is the ownership of or the rights to ownership of weapons by those who would commit their lives to ill-will, criminal behavior with malice aforethought.....  Oh wait, thought would mean that person is criminal by nature...  It is the understanding amongst those of who are law abiders, unless we are just completely and utterly naive to the ways of the world and humanity, that criminals are prone to circumventing the laws to get what they want, including the procurement and use of yes... firearms!

I therefore submit a more stringent approach to the approach on criminals with guns and a vastly more lenient yes dilligent approach to the rights of the law abiding citizenry to bear arms and to bring to justice those who act criminally in the possession of and ownership of firearms.

Perhaps this would be a more "Up To Date" and maybe, what our forefathers had in mind, version of the Second Amendment.


BCND

Reply from Congressman Denny Rehberg <[email protected]>  to me:  

"Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control.  It's good to hear from you.

Firearms play an important role in the lives of many Montanans.  From hunting to protecting our families and property, the right to keep and bear arms is a part of America's heritage.  I am a staunch supporter of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

While I believe it is important to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we must be careful not to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.

Research conducted during the early 1990s indicated there were at least 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the U.S.  According to this research, guns were used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes.  I understand how important firearms are to Montanans and I will keep working to preserve our rights.

Thanks again for contacting me on this important issue.  For more information and to sign up for my e-newsletter, please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/rehberg.  Keep in touch."

Quoted: maybe  she should monitor this site www.assaultweaponwatch.com/. it could teach her a thing or two.

Whoever came up with that site is a friggin genius!  That is about the most hilarious thing I've seen yet.  I can't wait until the PAYPAL donations come rolling in.

PAYPAL... lol, nice touch.

Sarcasm is my weapon of choice...

BRILLIANT!

HR. 1022 should be called ban the second amendment resoluton, By McCarthy.

I think its time we sponsor a resolution to ban anyone who opposes any part of the constitution of the united states. With emphasis on the second amendment.

To contact your Senator go here.  http://votesmart.org/index.htm

Quoted: This is the worst one ever.  These people just don't give up.  I hope this doesn't make it thru.  If we all make calls and send letters, we can hopefully stop this from going thru.

If everyone on this board would, it could be stopped but I would bet less than 5% will. You can send an email to the Judiciary committee in less time than it takes to post here.

judiciary.house.gov/Contact.aspx

realistically what are the chances of such a sweeping ban really being passed? I have heard less than 11% what have you guys heard, I am sending letters to my representatives, and emailing the judiciary, but is this something that could actually be passed?

Message sent to the Judiciary Committee, as follows.

Regarding HR. 1022

First off, I'm a soldier with the FSC, 1-187 IN BN, 101st Airborne(AASLT), and I'd like to voice my concern about HR 1022 introduced by  Representative Carolyn McCarthy. I believe that this is not the type of legislation this country needs. I'm a 2 time Iraq vet, and this is NOT what I'm defending my country for. I am NOT going to sit and watch my rights be taken away from me. I am a responsible and educated gun owner, but even if I were not, I would know this bill is far from responsible legislation. In fact, it's outrageous. It's outrageous that someone as uneducated about firearms and ignorant to today's real issues as Rep. McCarthy appears to be, could stand to tell me what is wrong and what is right. It's incredable to me that somebody with so obviously little firearms knowledge could even be taken serriously, introducing a bill like this. HR. 1022 is far too broad and sweeping. It will take the rights so many have shed their blood for, from law abiding citizens and throw them to the winds like they never exsisted. I trust you'll listen to the rest of the responsible and informed gun owners across the country, and strike this bill down where it stands before it can do any irrepreable damage to this country. Thank you for your time.

Spc. Josh Hohensee

I've got one reply from the three representatives I wrote to ....  I hope the other two reads my letter.....


Dear Mr. Babyarmalite

Thank you for contacting me regarding the semiautomatic weapons ban. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they included the Second Amendment to guarantee people the right to keep and bear arms. This is a fundamental part of our American identity, and I will work with my Senate colleagues to ensure that this liberty is protected for all law-abiding citizens.

On February 13, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) introduced the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act (H.R. 1022). This legislation would reauthorize for ten years the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which prohibits the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. H.R. 1022 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, where it awaits further approval.

Although no similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind as we proceed in the 110th Congress.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at ...

Sincerely,

United States Senator

Quoted: realistically what are the chances of such a sweeping ban really being passed? I have heard less than 11% what have you guys heard, I am sending letters to my representatives, and emailing the judiciary, but is this something that could actually be passed?

Most will not pass but alot still will.

As The Netherlands has a strickt law about fire-arms, this dictate indicates that some " politicans " try to bootleg the gun-sporting industry. As what happened to try to dry-out the alcohol in the 20,th, criminality raised sky-high because of this. So, as me, simply thinking person, this " new" ban, would increase criminallity again.
It would be better to give everey hous-hold a shotgun to protect theis property. Any " unwanted" guest, can assume that he/she will be confronted with a 12" -pipe in front of him/her. I think, that will decrease the criminal numbers more, huh ?

Val

Check this out, http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348



Jr.  

Contact your representative and senators about this evil bill.  These anti gun Nazis will NEVER rest until they turn this country into an unarmed utopia as was done in England.  They don't care about crime reduction, they want to take our weapons and rights away from us.  Gun control is loved by power hungry demagogues; ie: Hitlery Clinton, Nasty Pelosi and the rest of the DemonRat gang.  

Carolyn McCarthy is the Cindy Sheehan of gun control.  Had New York allowed concealed carry then maybe someone would have shot the racist murderer who was looking for white victims to murder and her husband would not have been murdered.  

They may be trying to get us so worked up about this outrageous bill that we'll settle for some lesser evil legislation. Politics is about making deals. The dumb asses in the house and/or senate may sell us out on some watered down version of this crap and say "look, we did you a favor by not letting the original bill pass". I hope we don't let that happen!

a-bare

I guess if they can't legally ban all guns out of the hands of the law-abiding because of that ever-present 2nd ammendment (what were our forefathers thinking?!), then they will force the law-abiding to become criminals by passing unconstitutional legislation that they know we won't go along with and in turn we will become criminals with no rights. Our crime? Owning, bearing, possessing illegal firearms. I'm sorry, but infringing means infringing, and to keep a law-abiding citizen from owning ANY type of gun is unconstitutional.

England, Australia, Canada, and the like turned in their guns, what would their governments have done if they would have refused? Our liberal government must think we will turn ours in too at the fear of becoming a "criminal". They don't realize, however, that in contrast to foreigners, in the heart of every American citizen lies a burning desire to have liberty and freedom from all who would oppress, a heart that will not be enslaved, that will not be ruled, that will not be subjected. We are Americans. We over-thrown our government once, we will do it again. We did not elect you to rule over us, we elected you to be uphold our constitution and be our voices in Congress.

I'm not giving up my guns, and I'm not going to let anyone take them from me. I have a God-given right to defend myself and my family, as well as a constitutional right - to defend myself and my family from ANYONE or ANY government that would seek to steal away from me my life, my freedom or the means to keep myself free.

If you liberal nazi's don't like our constitution, leave our country and join one that has the type of constitution you are looking for. How 400 something congressmen and women think they have the power to change the constitution that governs more than 300 million Americans and has for over 200 years is beyond me.

"What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!

With the exception of the liberal nazi thing.....  I think perhaps you should have specified for the weak minded, exactly who you were referring to.  We the gun-owners know exactly but the timid may need a handholding to guide them into the light.

BCND

Quoted: As i sit here pissed off about this stupid bill, I wonder what the gun industry is doing to stop this. it would be interesting to see how much of a profit loss the industry got hit with when the clinton ban took into effect? I would assume enthusiast spend multi millions if not billions on firearms and acc. a year, not to mention ammo? idunno just my 2cents

Hunters spend crazy money every year, and yes HR 1022 will cut into the profits of gun manufactures.