Predator Masters using UBB.threads ™ Infopop Corporation.
PM Gear Moon & Weather

Welcome to the Predator Masters Forums
Be sure to visit the main Predator Master website at





PM Gear
PM Gear
PM Gear
The Official Predator Masters Search Engine
Search Predator Masters

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#647845 - 02/24/07 08:45 AM It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time
Stu Farish Offline
Moderator/Webmaster

Registered: 04/22/01
Posts: 23213
Loc: Have gun, will travel
From the NRA:

THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."

McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")

. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."

. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 1022!

You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.
_________________________
If a fire fighter fights fires, then what does a freedom fighter fight?

Keep calm and crazy on


Top
#647846 - 02/24/07 10:05 AM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: Stu Farish]
Three 44s Offline
Die Hard Member III

Registered: 02/03/05
Posts: 2657
Loc: Washington St.
The "Armegedon Of Gun Rights" has begun!!!!

Gotta "ZUMBO" THOSE LIB Politicians!!!!

Stu,

You end your post with contacting our own Reps .... I agree whole heartedly.

But what about the respective committee members ......

I previewed the links provided by Leon and many of them skim off folks who are not from their district.

What do you suggest there?

I really think DEAD ASAP as in never making it out of committee is best case senario ..... and do think that threating a ZUMBO movement against these libs .... they must remember "94" and the fallout ........ it took them TWELVE years and a constant barrage of negative stories over Iraq plus some other spices thrown in for good measure to get the House and the Senate back.

Three 44s


Edited by Three 44s (02/24/07 10:11 AM)

Top
#647847 - 02/25/07 01:49 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: Three 44s]
blinddog Offline
Die Hard Member III

Registered: 04/21/06
Posts: 3441
Loc: Kansas U.S.A. 5 miles from th...
What do you mean threaten them with a zumbo? The time for threats passed in 1992 give them both barrels now. ANY elected Rep who sponsors votes for or otherwise autorizes or supports ANY infringment on the second has to be replaced at the next election if not sooner (they can be recalled)
I do not care if the have done other things that are preceved as good by some the attack on our RIGHTS cannot be forgiven or forgotten.
At least the Conservative Republicans are up front with what they do.
And they say what they mean in most cases. All I have seen from the left wing of congress is lies and more lies, they even lie about lying and who has lied to who.
_________________________
You may not always live as you wish, but you must always live as you can

Top
#647848 - 02/25/07 08:31 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: blinddog]
Three 44s Offline
Die Hard Member III

Registered: 02/03/05
Posts: 2657
Loc: Washington St.
I think we are on the same page???

I mean "threaten them with a "Zumbo" .... AS IN IF you vote for this ban ...... YOU ARE GONE!!

Is that imbiguous?

Regards

Three 44s

Top
#647849 - 02/26/07 05:07 AM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: Three 44s]
wonk1 Offline
Seasoned Member

Registered: 02/03/05
Posts: 147
Loc: Midwest
Hmmm...there could be some clever strategy at work here.

Freak out the gun-culture(the marks) with an over-the-top piece of legislation at the beginning........then the marks will accept a "compromised" version that's aligned with the original ban.

Accept no compromise.....KILL HR 1022.

NO COMPROMISE!!!

Top
#647850 - 02/26/07 11:46 AM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: wonk1]
were_skitzo Offline
Predator Master

Registered: 01/31/07
Posts: 88
Loc: Colorado
_________________________
Furthest Distance Coyote Taken 493 Yds-2007

Top
#647851 - 05/18/07 09:46 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: were_skitzo]
Javafour Offline
PM senior

Registered: 02/13/05
Posts: 6185
Loc: Kirkland, WA
OK, pardon my language, but it is obvious to everyone on this board that this dumb [beeep] does not know her [beeep] from my son's 10/22!

I was STUNNED whan I read this list of guns to be banned!

This crapola is sold to the non-gun public as a crime control measure (irrespective of the fact that Clinton's ban did nothing to reduce crime).

Like most of you guys, I could go down the list gun by gun, and point out the absurdity of it being banned but I won't.

I have the cartoon-like image in my mind of a gangbanger struggling to load and insert the clip of his trusty, 60 year-old M-1 Garand in preperation for a drive by! Gee, are the 'gas trap' versions going to be banned, too? These dipsticks couldn't even figure that weapon out.

".30 caliber carbines" Hmmm, that brings to mind the M-1 carbine. More up-to-date 60 year-old technology. Getting rid of those suckers will sure solve the crimianl problem!

Boy, these Democrats sure have this all figured out.

Here in Maryland the Democrats recently gave convicted felons back the right to vote, so they don't want to go for what would really reduce crime: locking up criminals, since those are their voters.

I'll contact my congressman asap, but he's a half-wit Democrat and therefore useless. I'm sure he'll vote yes.

I'm already an NRA Life Member but I think its time to send them some more money to fight these leftists gun grabbers. Especially since we are heading into an election next year...
_________________________



Top
#647852 - 08/29/07 12:26 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: Javafour]
Txyote Offline
Seasoned Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 277
Loc: Texas
It's time to start stock piling!

Top
#647853 - 09/05/07 04:57 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: Javafour]
danurve Offline
Die Hard Member II

Registered: 10/02/02
Posts: 1365
Loc: Syracuse, NY
Quote:

<snip>

I'm already an NRA Life Member but I think its time to send them some more money to fight these leftists gun grabbers. Especially since we are heading into an election next year...




Pardon me, but unless I have some facts backwards, the "NRA" is supporting this new bill.

I am not throwing stones at this point but if this is indeed the case it feels like a betrayal.
_________________________

In Memory of Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004
the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms PROTECT IT!

Top
#647854 - 09/05/07 05:21 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: danurve]
Stu Farish Offline
Moderator/Webmaster

Registered: 04/22/01
Posts: 23213
Loc: Have gun, will travel
Seeing as how the original post was a warning from the NRA against this bill, you're gonna have to back up the claim that they're supporting it. I haven't seen anything from them in support of this bill or anything like it.
_________________________
If a fire fighter fights fires, then what does a freedom fighter fight?

Keep calm and crazy on


Top
#647855 - 09/05/07 07:35 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: Stu Farish]
Bob Cline Offline
Seasoned Member

Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 207
Loc: Parkville, Misery
The Bill supported by the NRA is HR 2640.
Here is an e-mail I got from Gun Owners of America:

As Senate Reconvenes... Veterans Disarmament Bill Offers False Hopes
Of Relief For Gun Owners

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, September 5, 2007


I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the
lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but
by the past. -- Patrick Henry, in his "Give Me Liberty or Give Me
Death" speech of March 23, 1775

Patrick Henry had it right. Forget the past, and you're destined to
make the same mistakes in the future.

Gun control has been an absolute failure. Whether it's a total gun
ban or mere background checks, gun control has FAILED to keep guns
out of the hands of criminals.

But gun control fanatics still want to redouble their efforts, even
when their endeavors have not worked. Congress is full of fanatics
who want to expand the failed Brady Law to such an extent that
millions of law-abiding citizens will no longer be able to own or buy
guns.

For months, GOA has been warning gun owners about the McCarthy-Leahy
bill -- named after Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick
Leahy (D-VT). These anti-gun legislators have teamed up to introduce
a bill that will expand the 1993 Brady Law and disarm hundreds of
thousands of combat veterans -- and other Americans. (While McCarthy
and Leahy are this year's primary sponsors, the notorious Senator
Chuck Schumer of New York was a sponsor of this legislation in years
past.)

Proponents of the bill tell us that it will bring relief for many gun
owners. But to swallow this, one must first ignore the fact that gun
owners would NOT NEED RELIEF in the first place if some gun owners
(and gun groups) had not thrown their support behind the Brady bill
that passed in 1993 and were not pushing the Veterans Disarmament
Bill now.

Law-abiding Americans need relief because we were sold a bill of
goods in 1993. The Brady Law has allowed government bureaucrats to
screen law-abiding citizens before they exercise their
constitutionally protected rights -- and that has opened the door to
all kinds of abuses.

The McCarthy-Leahy bill will open the door to many more abuses.
After all, do we really think that notorious anti-gunners like
McCarthy and Leahy had the best interests of gun owners in mind when
they introduced this Veterans Disarmament Bill? The question
answers itself.

TRADE-OFF TO HURT GUN OWNERS

Proponents want us to think this measure will benefit many gun
owners. But what sort of trade off is it to create potentially
millions of new prohibited persons -- under this legislation -- and
then tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars to regain
the rights THAT WERE NOT THREATENED before this bill was passed?

Do you see the irony? Gun control gets passed. The laws don't stop
criminals from getting guns, but they invariably affect law-abiding
folks. So instead of repealing the dumb laws, the fanatics argue
that we need even more gun control (like the Veterans Disarmament
Bill) to fix the problem!!!

So more people lose their rights, even while they're promised a very
limited recourse for restoring those rights -- rights which they
never would lose, save for the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

The legislation threatens to disqualify millions of new gun owners
who are not a threat to society. If this bill is signed into law:

* As many as a quarter to a third of returning Iraq veterans could be
prohibited from owning firearms -- based solely on a diagnosis of
post-traumatic stress disorder;

* Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection
seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the
family inheritance);

* Your kid could be permanently banned from owning a gun, based on a
diagnosis under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Patrick Henry said he knew of "no way of judging of the future but by
the past." The past has taught us that gun control fanatics and
bureaucrats are continually looking for loopholes in the law to deny
guns to as many people as possible.

GUN CONTROL'S ABOMINABLE RECORD

A government report in 1996 found that the Brady Law had prevented a
significant number of Americans from buying guns because of
outstanding traffic tickets and errors. The General Accounting
Office said that more than 50% of denials under the Brady Law were
for administrative snafus, traffic violations, or reasons other than
felony convictions.

Press reports over the years have also shown gun owners
inconvenienced by NICS computer system crashes -- especially when
those crashes happen on the weekends (affecting gun shows).

Right now, gun owners in Pennsylvania are justifiably up in arms
because the police scheduled a routine maintenance (and shut-down) of
their state computer system on the opening days of hunting season
this year. The shut-down, by the way, has taken three days -- which
is illegal.

And then there's the BATFE's dastardly conduct in the state of
Wyoming. The anti-gun agency took the state to court after
legislators figured out a way to restore people's ability to buy
firearms -- people who had been disarmed by the Lautenberg gun ban of
1996.

Gun Owners Foundation has been involved in this Wyoming case, and has
seen up close how the BATFE has TOTALLY DISREGARDED a Supreme Court
opinion which allows this state to do what they did. In Caron v.
United States (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court said that any conviction
which has been set aside or expunged at the state level "shall not be
considered a conviction," under federal law, for the purposes of
owning or buying guns. But the BATFE has ignored this Court ruling,
and is bent on preventing states like Wyoming from restoring people's
gun rights.

Not surprisingly, the BATFE has issued new 4473s which ASSUME the
McCarthy-Leahy bill has already passed. The bill has not even been
enacted into law yet, and the BATFE is already using the provisions
of that bill to keep more people from buying guns.

The new language on the 4473 form asks:

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful
authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are
incompetent to manage your own affairs)....

Notice the words "determination" and "other lawful
authority."
Relying on a DETERMINATION is broader than just relying on a court
"ruling," and the words OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY are not limited to
judges. In other words, the definition above would allow a VA
psychologist or a school shrink to take away your gun rights.

This is what McCarthy and Leahy are trying to accomplish, but the
BATFE has now been emboldened to go ahead and do it anyway. This
means that military vets could potentially commit a felony by buying
a gun WITHOUT disclosing that they have Post Traumatic Stress
Syndrome because a "lawful authority" has decreed that they are a
potential danger to themselves or others.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to the
McCarthy-Leahy bill. On June 18 of this year, the group stated, "For
the first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose
a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

MORE RESTRICTIONS, NOT RELIEF

Supporters, like the NRA, say that they were able to win compromises
from the Dark Side -- compromises that will benefit gun owners. Does
the bill really make it easier to get your gun rights restored --
even after spending lots of time and money in court? Well, that's
VERY debatable, and GOA has grappled this question in a very lengthy
piece entitled, "Point-by-Point Response to Proponents of HR 2640,"
which can be read at http://www.gunowners.org/ne0702.htm on the GOA
website.

In brief, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

Incidentally, even before Schumer blocked the procedure, the ability
to get "relief from disabilities" under section 925(c) was
always an
expensive long shot. Presumably, the new procedures in the Veterans
Disarmament Act will be the same.

Isn't that always the record from Washington? You compromise with
the devil and then get lots of bad, but very little good. Look at
the immigration debate. Compromises over the last two decades have
provided amnesty for illegal aliens, while promising border security.
The country got lots of the former, but very little of the latter.

If the Veterans Disarmament Bill passes, don't hold your breath
waiting for the promised relief.

ACTION: Please use the letter below to contact your Senator. You
can use the pre-written message below and send it as an e-mail by
visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers
are also available).

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

Dear Senator:

While the NRA does some good work in the areas of shooting
competitions, firearms training, etc., THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME when
they support the so-called School Safety Act, sponsored by Patrick
Leahy in the Senate and Carolyn McCarthy in the House (HR 2640).

Gun owners don't support this legislation, better known as the
Veterans Disarmament Act. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is
opposed to it, having stated on June 18 of this year, that "For the
first time the legislation, if enacted, would statutorily impose a
lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans." Gun owners don't want
to expand the Brady Instant Check, we want to repeal it. It is
simply un-American to penalize individuals (like veterans) with no
due process by assuming they are guilty until proven innocent.

Anti-gun zealots are always looking to expand the number of citizens
who are prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I
don't believe that this bill will provide the relief that supporters
are promising.

After all, the McClure-Volkmer of 1986 created a path for restoring
the Second Amendment rights of prohibited persons. But given that
Chuck Schumer has successfully pushed appropriations language which
has defunded this procedure since the 1990s (without significant
opposition), it is certainly not too difficult for some anti-gun
congressman like Schumer to bar the funding of any new procedure for
relief that follows from the McCarthy-Leahy bill.

The Leahy bill is gun control, pure and simple, and voting for it
tells me you don't care about a little thing known as the
Constitution.

Sincerely,

Hope this helps prevent any confusion.
Bob (The Skypilot)
_________________________
The Skypilot "...beginning of the end" B. Hussein OBombus

Top
#647856 - 09/05/07 10:06 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: Bob Cline]
danurve Offline
Die Hard Member II

Registered: 10/02/02
Posts: 1365
Loc: Syracuse, NY
I appologise for being mistaken about the bill number. Thanx for posting that Bob, I received the same e-mail.
_________________________

In Memory of Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004
the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms PROTECT IT!

Top
#647857 - 09/05/07 10:07 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: danurve]
Stu Farish Offline
Moderator/Webmaster

Registered: 04/22/01
Posts: 23213
Loc: Have gun, will travel
Supporting that would be bad. If the NRA is doing so they need to change that.
_________________________
If a fire fighter fights fires, then what does a freedom fighter fight?

Keep calm and crazy on


Top
#647858 - 01/01/08 06:54 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: Stu Farish]
alhefner Offline
Seasoned Member

Registered: 12/29/07
Posts: 489
Loc: Reno, Nevada
Insanity is often defined as "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results".

The libs and hysterical anti-gun crowd are insane. They have tried "gun control" legislation over and over again only to prove that only law abiding persons even care about the law. The criminal will always find the gun of choice.

The other thing that they completely forget is that it isn't the gun that commits the crime! I have yet to hear of any gun commiting murder without human assistance. Prosecute the criminal, not his tools.

As for taking lessons from the past, they really need to study what the effect of alcohol prohibition had on the nation. I doubt anyone wants that to happen with a prohibition on guns.

Al
_________________________
I hunt with air rifles and camera. Some of the photos I post to my blog...please see my profile for info on the blog.

Top
#647859 - 02/13/08 12:37 PM Re: It's Not Just "Assault Weapons" This time [Re: alhefner]
BruceT Offline
Seasoned Member

Registered: 01/22/08
Posts: 183
Loc: Northern Maine
They are just trying to get their foot in the door by going after the assault weapons.They figure they can get more support that way.Then once their foot is in they can go after all the other guns.
_________________________
VEGETARIAN-Old indian term for bad hunter

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  Infidel 762, Stu Farish 

© Predator Masters™, All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.