• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

HR 1022- It's BAAAACK!! ... do the Dems want your guns ?? Assault or otherwise??

MasterBates

Well-Known Member
The ban has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. The NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968 and FOPA of 1986 took care of that. In a bad way.

So are you willing to throw those of us that own "Hi capacity mags" (you have REDUCED capacity there, I have FULL capacity here in TX) under the bus of the Bradyites as long as you can have your M1?

Firearms owners (ALL OF US) need to stand together, or the gun banners will take us all down one at a time.

YOU may not like Semi-Auto versions of modern military arms, but I do. I may not like what you shoot, but I am willing to defend it as much as my own choice of arms.

Sorry if it comes across harsh, but people with the "I dont care about EBRs or HiCap mags, as long as I can have my Model 700 and Shotgun" attitude just dont get it.

When the banners get my AR, then they will come after your "Scoped Sniper Rifle" and "Street Sweeper"
 

schwarti

Active Member
Contributor
Okay, I guess I came across kind of wrong - I'm not going to say that just because -I- don't want an auto, that means I don't care if the guns I don't want get banned. I think that responsible people should be able to have whatever guns they want. It was more that I was just amazed that they were including the M1 in there.

And I do like the semi-auto civilian versions. Just not enough to buy them. But I do enough to write to my congresspeople to tell them I think this bill is a load of crap.

I get that you weren't trying to ream me, and even though I came across wrong, please believe that I'm not the kind of person who would let others get screwed as long as I'm not touched.
 

MasterBates

Well-Known Member
Okay,

I'm a tad touchy on the subject, since I was a member of a gun club in Carver that sold out us EBR owners, as long as their hunting guns were OK.

Then 2 years later, they got banned too.
 

schwarti

Active Member
Contributor
No worries - I know it's a touchy subject, and my real attitude doesn't come across on the inter-web.
 

Random8145

Registered User
I saw this on another forum, if this is true, it doesn't seem good:

Written by Mike Kinsey
Thursday, 26 April 2007

This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners around the country. It's not going to be easy.

Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next couple of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier this week, you need to do so once again.

All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very, very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago -- legislation that never got through Congress.

You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week, Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun control.

He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable limitation. We do it for cars."

Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.

In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.
This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if this bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM responsible. (Be looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your Senators.)

On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three problems with this approach:

1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.

2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has crashed -- and don't forget returning veterans because of combat-related stress. You give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch, he'll take a mile -- which we have already seen as GOA has documented numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above.

3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert, severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly identified Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard massacre. In fact, it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 -- a country which at the time had even more stringent laws than we have here.)

McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS

HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a "prohibited person."

Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.

In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the Bush administration on terrorists.

And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the private lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay" because it's only being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and criminals who are trying to kill us.

As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic, state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of what could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an anti-gun AG like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in the system as possible.

The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all "relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?

ACTION:

1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 -- even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated information relating to the battle we are fighting.

House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen. Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as killer amendments.

Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak for you! That's why it's so important that you once again tell your congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.

2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners as you can.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Representative:

As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support HR 297, the NICS Improvement Act. I hope that you will OPPOSE this bill and urge your party leadership to either kill it outright or to allow other pro-gun amendments to be offered (repeal of the DC gun ban, reciprocity for concealed carry holders, etc.).

In its current form, HR 297 will treat gun owners even worse than terrorists, giving the FBI a mountain of private information on law-abiding Americans like me.

How is it that, despite all the criticism over the Bush administration's attempts to obtain personal information on suspected terrorists without a court order, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of information on ME -- information which dwarfs any warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the country.

And all of this personal information would be obtained by the FBI with no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

How is it that spying on terrorists is bad, but spying on honest gun owners is good?

Again, I hope that you will oppose HR 297. Gun Owners of America will continue to keep me informed on the progress of this bill. Thank you.

Sincerely,
 

PropStop

Kool-Aid free since 2001.
pilot
Contributor
People don't need assault rifles. But then again, people don't need sports cars or boob jobs, but there sure are lots of them out there.

Fast cars kill more people a year than legally owned "assault weapons", many times over. I bet more people die of elective surgery complications.

Pisses me off. Thankfully Alaska still has lots of pull in congress, despite it's small population. May be making some phone calls. At least there any person can walk right up to any public official's office and walk right in.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I saw this on another forum, if this is true, it doesn't seem good:

Written by Mike Kinsey
Thursday, 26 April 2007

This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners around the country........

Senator Schumer is pushing to get this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE. .......

.......On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three problems with this approach:

Seriously, could you get a rant with more hyperbole in it? It is like the end of the world to that guy.......:icon_roll......

The guy needs to check on his consitutional and congressional history and rules. One of the requirements of unanimous consent is that all senators have to agree to pass it. If one Senator disagrees with it, it does not pass. It would then have to be put up to a vote. I wonder how I figured that out.........:eek: http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm

Also, what the NRA has said they woul dnot object to, they are not supporting it, is a bill to provide federal money to the states to input mentally ill people into the National Instant Crimnal Background Check System (NICS). http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-26-gundealerdatabase_x.htm

Personally, I don't want people like MB's soon-to-be ex-wife being able to buy a gun.
 

xmid

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
Personally, I don't want people like MB's soon-to-be ex-wife being able to buy a gun.

I'd tend to agree with that... but whats to stop her from opening the Jax newspaper and looking under the "Hunting and Fishing" section of the classifieds in order to find a private sale firearm that would not involve a background check? Once again, if someone REALLY wants one it's not going to be that hard to get it.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I'd tend to agree with that... but whats to stop her from opening the Jax newspaper and looking under the "Hunting and Fishing" section of the classifieds in order to find a private sale firearm that would not involve a background check? Once again, if someone REALLY wants one it's not going to be that hard to get it.

You can't stop everyone, but if you close off the major avenue for these people to obtain firearms then I would argue that much fewer mentally ill people would be able to obtain firearms.
 

statesman

Shut up woman... get on my horse.
pilot
This is going to pass the House I am betting just because the Majority Party can push anything they want. Pelosi is a gun grabber from San Fran and this is probably going to be a big issue for her. It will get out of committee because Pelosi being the Majority leader owns the committees.

The hard part will be getting through the Senate. Because you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. Then even if it makes it through the Senate you will need the POTUS signature.

The last AW ban passed because it was piggy backed on a crime fighting bill that would have been suicide for some R senators to have voted against. Senators in competitive districts. This ban stands alone, and with the electoral sorting that has occurred since 94 there are few R senators that would be willing to vote for this. Aside from that the Dems control congress by 2 seats and the seats they won were clutch races. They could very easily loose the majority especially with the tough 08 election right around the corner.
 

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
Funny thing ... most "mainstream" Democrat politicians are suggesting that "gun control" is not an "issue" right now .... whadda' ya know ... they just don't want to talk about it. :)

I suspect that is because they don't want the pro-gun majority waking up and coming out of the woodwork like they did in 1994. It took the onerous Clinton gun ban to get Joe 6-pack off his butt and into the voting booth ...

The Dem's would rather milk the Iraq war for all it's worth in hopes of taking back the White House and keeping both houses of Congress.

Then ..... with the White House in the "blue" column and no veto possible, and with Pelosi, Schummer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Murray, and a left wing host of others in charge .... you'd better bury your guns. And watch out, as it will be "pay-back" time for 1994 and gun owners ...... :eek:
 

statesman

Shut up woman... get on my horse.
pilot


I suspect that is because they don't want the pro-gun majority waking up and coming out of the woodwork like they did in 1994. It took the onerous Clinton gun ban to get Joe 6-pack off his butt and into the voting booth ...

Did I hear Contract with America 2 and another Republican sweep of the HoR
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The hard part will be getting through the Senate. Because you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. Then even if it makes it through the Senate you will need the POTUS signature.

Ummmmm, bills in the Senate can be passed by a simple majority. A veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority, so a bill doesn't need the president's signature. Cloture, the vote to end a debate and break a filibuster, requires 60 votes. Did you sleep through that part of civics class.........:confused:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Enactment_law.htm#13
 

xmid

Registered User
pilot
Contributor
You can't stop everyone, but if you close off the major avenue for these people to obtain firearms then I would argue that much fewer mentally ill people would be able to obtain firearms.

Would not be "able" to or would not "have the drive to"? Because as I just said, its as easy as opening the paper, going to an estate sale, or even doing a private sale at a gun show. Those are just a few of the ways firearms are easily obtainable without a background check, and I didn't even get in to the black market/illegal ways to get one. I would definitely agree that it may cut down on the number of mentally unstable that actually end up with firearms, but for those that are truly motivated to do someone else harm its hardly a roadblock.

All that being said, I completely agree that the mentally ill should not be able to legally obtain firearms. It's part of the reason we run background checks through the ATF. Some slip through the cracks, but overall it is a good program.
 
Top