GUN Info on the proposed new AWB in the House right now

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Ichabod Crane, May 22, 2003.

  1. Ichabod Crane

    Ichabod Crane Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    29,556
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Implications of the 2003 Assault Weapon for American Gun Owners

    A new and much more far-reaching ban on firearms has been proposed in the House of Representatives. The purpose of this document is to give a fairly concise overview of the newly proposed law, and how it will affect gun-owning Americans. Unfortunately, much of the wording of the proposal, HR 2038, does nothing but modify parts of the original ban. In order to get a decent idea of what the whole picture looks like you have to cross reference HR 2038 with Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Sec. 922 of the United States code. For the purposes of this document, HR 2038 was referenced from http://www.thomas.loc.gov and Sec. 922 was referenced from the US Code Collection available at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu.

    This newly proposed law is a much more sweeping piece of legislation that will have a far-reaching effect much beyond the so-called ‘black rifle crowd.’ No one, from shotgun hunters to Olympic shooting competitors is left untouched. Those who wrote this legislation are engaging in nothing short of Orwellian doublethink. They have taken the original definition of what an ‘assault weapon’ is, completely discarded it, and are now reinventing it to cover a much more broad swath of firearms.

    1) Hunters

    Most of the time legislators attempt to paint themselves as pro-gun by associating themselves with hunters, and pointing out that they would never attempt to take away anyone’s duck gun. Time to wake up. Under the newly proposed ban, any and all semiautomatic shotguns will be banned that have any of the following:



    Yes, I know that state law requires your shotgun to be plugged to a 3-round capacity. But since it’s not a permanent fix, you just lost your right to own many autoloading shotguns on the market. Admittedly, hunters are the least affected by this new law, but they are affected nonetheless. What’s worse, this bill would outlaw many shotgun configurations that are well suited to home defense.

    2) Competition shooters

    Competition shooters are not left out, and the proposals are such that it hits pretty much every competitor from High Power to IPSC to International Bullseye shooters.

    A) Shotguns
    Since pretty much all autoloading shotguns are toast with this bill, don’t expect to be running one in an IPSC or 3 gun match.

    B) Action pistol
    The magazine ban is still in place. So if you’re an IDPA shooter you’ll still be limited to 10 round magazines. If you’re an IPSC shooter, you’ll be forced to pay the inflated price for standard capacity mags. Oh, and the burden of proof as to whether that magazine of yours is truly preban has been shifted from the government to you. More on this later.

    C) Bullseye pistol

    You think that Pardini is safe? Think again.


    This exact same ban was instituted in California. When it was pointed out that high-end competition guns like the Walther GSP fell under the ban, the legislature’s response was “So what?”

    D) Rifle competition

    Be it 3 gun or high power rifle shooting, these sports will now be essentially closed to any and all new comers. The AR15, FAL, and AR10 are mentioned by name, and the features listed all but put the M1 Garand and M1A on the endangered species list. Also, those with fixed-magazine guns are not left untouched. If you have a rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you have an assault rifle. So you can no longer skirt the law by attaching those 30-round fixed magazines to an SKS, and might, in fact, be committing a felony if you try to sell that rifle. Also, please note that in the original bill an assault weapon is defined as one with the ability to take detachable magazines, and includes at least two so-called 'evil features' (bayonet lug, flash hider, etc.) In this law an 'assault weapon' is defined as being semiautomatic with the ability to take detachable magazines and only including one "evil" feature. What they are doing is to redefine a genre of weaponry that doesn't exist in any professional sense among gun designers or the gun owning public.

    Here’s the real kicker to the whole thing, though: The sporting purposes clause is nowhere near ironclad. In fact, it reads:


    In other words, just because a particular firearm is suited for a particular sport is no guarantee that it is suited for a particular sport, at least as far as can and will be determined by some lackey working in the AG’s office, who undoubtedly has far more insight into the shooting sports than any of us. If a particular sporting weapon is derived from a military design, then it is considered to be suspect.

    Of course, the above is only in relation to firearms and whether or not they are particularly suited to a given sport. As far as one’s right to self-defense and the use of a firearm thereof, you’re out of luck. By the way, if you’re still reading this, you’ve just gotten through the good news.

    3) Elimination of the sunset.

    It is what it says it is. The new law will have no sunset. We either kill this thing now, or fight a much harder fight in the future.

    4)Repealing prior exemptions in the 1994 law.

    Got a rifle/shotgun/pistol that you want to sell? Better check with the law first. If it falls under the nebulous and ever-changing definition of what an assault weapon is, you’ll have to transfer the gun through a dealer. That’s right, all guns are equal, but some are more equal than others. It will become illegal to transfer one of these firearms through a private transaction. In other words, no, you cannot sell your rifle to your next-door neighbor who has been your best friend since you were both in Kindergarten. If he/she wants it, you’ll have to go through an FFL. The law states:


    Yes, that’s right, no more private party transactions. And it gets even better (by which I mean worse) when we get to the bit about magazines.


    4) Regulation of buying/selling standard capacity magazines





    So once you decide to sell a weapon governed by this law, you cannot sell any magazines with it. Please note that this also applies to firearms with fixed magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Doing so will result in punishment-



    So basically, if you decide to sell a semi-automatic firearm, you are prohibited from selling any magazines with it, lest you get tossed in the clink for a few years.

    5) Strengthening the ban on ‘large capacity ammunition feeding devices.’

    Are you a cop or law-enforcement officer? In the old law there were a few hoops you could jump through and if you were lucky enough to have a cool boss, you could even keep those ‘high capacity’ magazines that you bought (with your own money) for your service sidearm. Not anymore. The new law reads:



    Ok, so that sounds like a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo. Striking? Subparagraph C? redesignating this as that? What?
    The old sub paragraph C from the original 1994 bill reads as follows:



    In other words, once those involved with law enforcement retire, they are considered to be just as untrustworthy as the rest of the civilian population.

    B) The burden of proof shifted regarding magazine possession is shifted from gov’t to individual-




    Basically a gun dealer is now prohibited from selling a pre-ban magazine, unless he first certifies it with the AG’s office. So while it would still be legal to own pre-ban magazines, it is now a major hassle for both the dealer and customer to get them. This will drive the prices up even further, or cause many gun dealers to stop selling pre-ban magazines all together.

    This particular part of the law stinks even worse because it shifts the burden of proof from the government to the owner of a magazine. In other words, according to the old law, the government would have to prove that the magazine you have is indeed a pre-ban or illegal post ban. Now that has been switched around. It is now up to the accused to prove that a given magazine from his/her collection is indeed a pre-ban. This is called ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and last time I checked is illegal according to the US Constitution.

    Insanity, it has been said, can be defined as repeating the same thing and expecting different results. The 1994 ban is a proven failure at reducing the rate of violent crime. Instead, it created a miasma of confusing rules and regulations that are nearly impossible to follow unless one is well versed with the letter of the law. It established an ever-changing definition of what an ‘assault weapon’ is, and has relegated the American gun owner to the rank of a second-class citizen. We must fight not only the expansion of this bill, but the reauthorization of it, too.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------


    GUN OWNERS put Bush and a lot of
    other Republicans in office, and this is how we get repaid.

    Make you mad? You CAN do something about it. READ ON:


    PHONE CALLS are a very important means for politicians
    to keep their finger on our pulse. They figure if you’ll take a few
    minutes and spend a couple of bucks for long-distance calls you’re SERIOUS about your message.

    No, there’s no way to measure the influence of calls, but Congressmen continually tell us this is how they know what issues to support or not to support.

    We tend to believe them. Remember, their goal is NOT to protect the Constitution (except perhaps Ron Paul of Texas) but to
    get RE-ELECTED. Listening to their most active and vocal constituents is how they do it.

    HERE YOU GO -- JUST DO IT! YOU’LL LIKE YOURSELF
    BETTER AFTERWARD.

    START WITH
    Speaker of the House, Republican Dennis Hastert —
    (202) 225-2976

    THEN CALL
    House Majority Leader, Republican Tom DeLay —
    202-225-5951

    THEN CALL
    Senate Majority Leader, Republican Bill Frist — (202)
    224-3344

    THEN CALL
    The White House — (202) 456-1111
    HESITATING? HERE’S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CALL:

    They say “Hello, Rep X’s office.”

    Tell them you want to leave a comment.

    They’ll say “Sure, go ahead.”

    Just something like “If the Clinton gun and magazine
    ban is renewed, I will not support/vote for (Bush, Republican Party, etc).” No need to get emotional or speak volumes.

    The phone handler on the other end will mark your comment on their issues list and say “Thank you,” and you’re done.


    It’s easy.
     
  2. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    tom delay has gone on has gone on record, along with several other republicans, saying that the ban WILL sunset. no effort to renew or add to the ban will make it out of committee. the president has also said that he supports the ban "as it stands" meaning, as it stands to sunset. my friend works for about half of the GA republican state senators, and is fairly good friends with the guv'nor and several congressional reps from the area. he met the president when he was here last time, and asked the president what he thought of the AWB, which is where i get that quote from above. democrats know it's suicide to try to push this thing, because it's a losing issue for them. it'll never see the light of day.
     
  3. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're very right, footrat, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be calling, or better yet writing, our reps to let them know how we feel.

    You know more and more of the HCI-type folks are going to be pushing for bans as the sunset draws closer. The CNN/Broward County fiasco is just a taste of the stunts they could pull.

    Just because we're in the lead for now doesn't mean we should stop running.

    Great time to join the NRA if you're not a member. Show some support for Wayne lacing into CNN. Just when everyone thought he was gone soft too. :cool:
     
  4. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    true, true.
     
  5. Enigma

    Enigma Guest

    damn.. thanks for all that info seawolf. i've heard a bit about this lately but really haven't read a lot about it.. i'll be making some calls when i get home..
     
  6. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also the thing to watch for is the compromise efforts: "Well, if you think HR2038 is too much, how about just reimplementing what we have now..."

    Make sure you tell them: No deals.
     
  7. SS109

    SS109 3100 FPS OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    Messages:
    17,453
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Lost Park
    It is as simple as this, if Bush signs this bill, I will vote Libertarian.
     
  8. Ichabod Crane

    Ichabod Crane Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    29,556
    Likes Received:
    1
  9. Pimp Cat

    Pimp Cat Guest

    so whats it mean for us if the ban does go away?
     
  10. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    it means you'll actually be able to afford mags and "preban" rifles. it means glock factory mags will be $15 maximum. it means we'll start seeing more stuff that we like. it means less hearing loss and muzzle flash because we'll be able to use flash suppressors. it means we'll be able to use collapsible stocks. it means the firearms industry will greatly increase again.
     
  11. Pimp Cat

    Pimp Cat Guest

    w00t, i want a flash suppressor :big grin: and collapsible stock and more 30 round clips
     
  12. a note before i comment: I'm not an anti-gun supporter. as a matter of fact, i'm as far from it as i can possibly be but...


    whats the point in fighting it? yes its about our right to carry certain types of weapons but shooting someone in defense of your home will 9/10 land you in jail wont it? i've heard so many stories of a homeowner capping an intruder and the homeowner being sent to jail. it seems the only right we have when it comes to guns is practicing shooting and being locked up in a safe. like i said before, if you use a gun for any type of defense, chances are you'll be in deep trouble.


    sorry if i sound ignorant. i'm probably wrong but this is what i know.
     
  13. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    Field Marshal, you're not entirely wrong, but "9/10" is definitely overrating your chances of an arrest, or more accurately, a conviction of crime. i don't know where you would have heard so many stories. Thankfully, the US judicial system isn't as bad as England, where your estimate would be generous and home owners DO get lengthy jail sentences for "presenting a lethal threat to those breaking into his domicile".

    The laws that govern when an intruder presents a deadly threat do, incredibly, vary from state to state, but as long as you're aware of them where you live, a guy breaking in your home rarely gets a lot of sympathy. You need to be able to clearly articulate why deadly force was required and why it was justified under state law. Even in anti-self-defense states like California or New Jersey, if you shoot a guy who is in your bedroom menacing you with a machete, your chances of criminal conviction for shooting him are remote.

    In other states, such as my own (their silly state AWB notwithstanding..), the law takes a more reasonable approach in saying that anyone who has successfully engaged in forcing unlawful entry can be asssumed to present a lethal threat if you are in your home.

    These sue happy days, you'll naturally be filed against by the bad guy's family for violating his civil rights, but civil court isn't criminal court.
     
  14. thank you for the explaination, kelly.

    i've heard a couple stories that i can remember where a guy shot an intruder and was arrested and actually convicted of manslaughter. one was in baltimore, one was in california, and i've heard a couple of local stories but i don't know the details.

    it sucks how bad of a rap guns have gotten in america but people don't know that more people are killed from knives than with guns. i don't see a whole lot of anti-knife campaigns :p
     
  15. Scoob_13

    Scoob_13 Anything is possible, but the odds are astronomica

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Messages:
    73,781
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Fort Worth. Hooray cowgirls.
    I'll make sure that it's passed around my office on Tuesday. Interesting information.

    Side note, I was looking at a Bushmaster this afternoon while down at the range, I'm definitely going to have to decide between the M1A and the AR-15 :hs:
     
  16. Pimp Cat

    Pimp Cat Guest

    i was talkin to the army guys today. and they were tellin me that flash suppressors dont make quieter? were they feeding me bs or what?
     
  17. kellyclan

    kellyclan She only loves you when she's drunk.

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,944
    Likes Received:
    0
    No BS.

    A sound suppressor (AKA silencer) is the device you'd need to reduce the sound.

    The way silencers reduce noise also eliminates the muzzle flash, but that is just a by-product and not their primary function.

    A flash suppressor, however, is not designed to reduce noise, just the muzzle flash. If you look at military M16 rifles or many preban AR's, you'll see the small "birdcage" flash suppressor on the end of the barrel. By redirecting the expanding gases at the muzzle, they keep the shooter from being blinded (especially at night or while using NVG) by his muzzle flash.
     
  18. footratfunkface

    footratfunkface New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Covington, GA
    yeah, flash suppressors don't really do much for sound. what they do do is to redirect gasses, like kellyclan said, which also reduces APPARENT sound. a standard non-braked or flash-suppressed barrel will be louder and more concussive to people standing to the sides and rear of you than a flash-suppressed barrel because of the direction and dispersion of gasses. with a muzzle brake, the gasses are focused and redirected rather than dispersed and redirected, which makes volume louder to just about everyone, especially people within about 45-60 degrees from perpindicular to the barrel. if you shoot a plain barrel and one with an A2 birdcage or an open birdcage, you get just about the same apparent sound for the shooter, just not for bystanders.
     
  19. Pimp Cat

    Pimp Cat Guest

    aw cool. thanks. i still want one :big grin:
     

Share This Page