Springfield XD Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here we go again. Write your congressmen guys! Thought we had this taken care of already:

S. 620 Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005

H.R. 1312 Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
If I read #2 correctly, it bans certain lever action rifles and any "large capacity feeding devices" manufactured after 1994. If the second part is true, any high-capacity magazines currently owned would be instantly made illegal upon the date this bill would take effect.

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
I hope this legislation nosedives faster than Rosie O`Donnell on a dropped doughtnut.

-James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
Ambiguity is potentially the worst threat of this piece of trash. This makes me ill...

And it looks to me like mere posession of a "semiautomatic assault weapon" would be banned. There's nothing in the following allowing for previously (lawfully) owned SAWs like your AR-15: (and perhaps that's our best hope that this bill won't make it through)
`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

`(B) any firearm that--

`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(iii) is an antique firearm;

`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

`(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States (including the United States armed forces and, under regulations pursuant to title 50, United States Code, the National Guard and Reserve), or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or

`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
813 Posts
Ok, this has been gone over before by attornies and one thing has stuck out before and is still in it. Here is what people are failing to catch that could legally screw EVERYONE out of guns.


`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(iii) a pistol grip;

(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--

`(ii) a pistol grip;

`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
Thier definition of pistol grip is so vague that it literally covers anything used as a grip by the user. That includes standard riflestock grips as well.

Also this part leaves it open to the government as to what is a sporting firearm and what's not.

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
This is a VERY dangerous bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
Ok, the house version has a grandfather clause. Senate version does not. One insideous thing in the house version is this:
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
This means that if the military or a law enforcement agency buys a particular firearm, it is thereafter presumed to be "unsuitable" for sporting purposes. :shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
The Senate version does have a grandfather clause:

"S.620
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

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



SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:

`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
I don't read that as a grandfather clause at all. Nor will the government.

Anyway, here's a form letter y'all can use. Replace the "XXX" with your senator's name.

Dear Senator XXX:
I am writing to you to express my deep concern over a bill that has been introduced into the United States Senate. S.620 seeks to renew and extend the reach of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Statistics from a wide array of law enforcement organizations have proven beyond any doubt that the 1994 ban did nothing to deter violent crime. One principle remains sound and undisputable--someone bent on violent crime will commit violent crime without regard for any law. Convicted felons in prisons have stated in interviews by prominent journalists that if they wanted to get a gun, they wouldn't buy it from a gun store. Those who have authored this bill have missed entirely the common sense deduction that banning firearms described in this bill will not stop those who desire to use them for illegal purposes from obtaining or using them. Senator XXX, it makes no good sense at all to infringe upon the rights of the law abiding citizens which are guaranteed by the Second Amendment in an effort that has already been proven completely ineffective.

Guns are not the problem--criminals are. It's time that our government operated with that knowledge and understanding. New gun laws will not deter criminals--they never have, and they never will. This bill and others like it are a shocking violation of some of the clearest text in the constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I urge you in the strongest possible way to consider the unbiased facts from the period of 1994 to 2004, and violent crime rates before, during and after that period. It will leave any reasonable man or woman acting prudently with the unarguable conclusion that this kind of legislation is an assault only on law abiding citizens.

In February of 1982 the Sub-Committee on the Constitution of the Ninety-Seventh Congress released a report detailing its findings on the history of the Second Amendment. View the report here: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

The conclusion was as follows:

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

I challenge you, Senator, to look to history to guide your decision. The Second Amendment was written and adopted by wise men. They did not intend for it to protect hunting. They did not intend for it to protect gun ownership for "sporting" purposes. As Attourney General John Ashcroft said, the purpose of the second amendment "Is to prevent tyranny in government." That true purpose is soundly defeated by legislation such as this. Please, Senator XXX, do whatever you can to oppose this bill.

Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
(your name)
(your city, your state)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Easy folks Dennis Haster and Tom Delay will scuttle this in committee before it hits the floor. However thats just my opinion. I have allready shot off a Email to Bill Frist about this and from what I read on his website he is opposed to it.

Im sure I should be worried Im just not that worked up about it yet :D
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top