Bill Would Renew Federal Assault Weapons Ban
One bill to revive the assault weapons ban has already been introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D, New York, 4th). McCarthy's Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, (H.R. 1022), would reenact the ban for ten years.
Along with reinstating federal criminal penalties involving possession or transfer of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices, H.R. 1022 would expand the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" to include semiautomatic-to-fully-automatic conversion kits and any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that accepts a detachable magazine and that has other characteristics of assault weapons, including telescoping stocks, threaded barrels and pistol grips.
Proponents of the reinstatement argue that the number of assault weapons confiscated by police has surged since the end of the ban. Proponents also cite a 1999 National Institute of Justice study showing that murders of police officers by offenders with assault weapons declined from 16 percent of gun murders of police in 1994 and early 1995 to zero percent in the latter half of 1995 to 1996, the first full year the federal assault weapons ban was in effect. However, the same report goes on to state that the total number of such incidents were so rare during the reporting period that the data failed to permit a "reliable assessment" of whether the ban contributed to a general reduction in gun murders of police.
Opponents of the ban's renewal argue that gun crime has not increased substantially since the assault weapons ban expired, and that legally owned assault-type weapons are used for hunting and target practice.
Also See:
Who Cannot Own a Gun in America?
Brady Act Gun Buyer Background Checks
Comments
So let me get this straight, they are used so rarely in crime that a reliable assessement can not be made, and yet that justifies infringing the civil rights of millions of Americans? How about we make it illegal for prohibited possesors to have them, and for people to transfer them to prohibited possessors. Oh wait. It’s already illegal. So making everyone a prohibited possessor solves the problem? This is overbearing infringement of constitutionally protected civil rights.
Leave it to the Idiocrats to try some foolishness like this.
Idiots one and all.
MOLWN LABE!
They ain’t gettin nothin from me! Molon Labe!
The extra article with this one states who may not own a gun. In the article it states “Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa” as one such group. Legal aliens with a non-inmigrant visa may own a gun if they get a hunting license according to the BATFE website. Green card holders may own guns without having a hunting license.
The recent theatrics by the PA mayor, police chief and governor regarding the SKS rifle that was used to kill a police officer give pause to any thinking person. They claim this rifle was meant to pierce body armor and has no hunting purpose. They want the assault rifle ban reinstated but do not want legitimate hunting rifles banned. The vast majority of hunting rifles larger than .22 caliber will defeat body armor. A few are chambered for pistol cartages and will not but most use “high power” rounds. The police chief got egg on his face when he called for reinstatement of the “assault weapons ban” without realizing the SKS rifle used in the killing of the police officer was not included in the ban. It uses a non-removable magazine and is reloaded by stripper clips.
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting four-legged critters. It’s about hunting two-legged tyrants who write, vote for and sign ‘assault weapons’ bans.
When guns are outlawed “Liberal” season must begin or we will become like England:
http://tinyurl.com/426gz2
6 — Be careful. The 2nd Amendment does not sanction murder or any other criminal use of firearms. To advocate “hunting” people down in the name of the 2nd amendment only plays into the hands of those who actually would confiscate all privately owned firearms.
7 – Robert.
There is no foul in reminding us of the true purpose of the Second Amendment as
noted in The Federalist Papers.
“Murder” is the unjust killing of humans. Resisting tyrants is not unjust.
And I quote…
“A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
Definintion of a militia: –noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
The 2nd amendment isn’t for killing “two-legged tyrants” its for the military. So the NRA interpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong in saying that everyone is allowed to have a firearm. I say instead of banning assult weapons, ban all firearms. Reduce gun crime to zero. Then we wouldn’t have stories like this http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=779143.
Logic has absolutely nothing to do with legislation such as this. When the feds, over decades, have increased the laws to include misdemeanors and restraining orders to keep even more US citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right, and over time increasing the types of firearms and “loading devices” citizens can’t own. And that same federal government won’t allow citizens under 21 to own handguns, but allows them to fight in defense of the very document they, our politicians (which the vast majority are lawyers) routinely contradict with a handgun issued to every soldier, and that same federal government hires ex-felons into our military, LOGIC obviously has NOTHING to do with legislation like this. It has EVERYTHING to do with control! They have all the time in the world to rid us of our firearms… one way, or the other. And they will because of ignorance, apathy, and cowardace which is so prevalent today within this country. America is, and will be, destroyed from within just like our Forefathers warned us would happen. By the way “Bleeding heart,” go down to the library and read/comprehend the definition of the militia as noted in Title 10, Section 311 of the CURRENT US code. You will find the “organized” and “unorganized militia” definitions absolute! As it was during the Revolutionary War; it is today. The government ran military (the organized militia) fought with and adjacent to the citizen’s military (the UNorganized militia)in order to beat the “Red Coats.” This is why, until such time (which will never happen) the government absolutely defines what firearms the citizenry can own/bear WITHOUT “enfringing” on the Second Amendment, they will continue to squeeze the Second Amendment out of existence without AMENDING the Constitution as our Forefather’s originally intended in order to change it! America is sound asleep. Good night! Our children, and future generations will be cursing us for what we’ve allowed to happen, and will continue to allow to happen.
I am tired of hunting being one of the decision making processes when determining whether a weapon has reason to be owned my law abiding citizens. Has anyone heard of target shooting?? Its time we stop slapping laws on law abiding citizens and put all those millions of dollars toward going after the criminals. Criminals don’t care about gun laws; these laws are not stopping them from using a banned weapon. I also collect guns, for example have one rifle that was from WWII. Who has the right to tell me, a law abiding citizen I can’t collect certain types of guns.
When the DC hand gun law ban had passed, gun crime climbed significantly. Thanks for the Supreme Court the citizens of DC again have the right to protect their family, self and home from criminals. Criminals need to understand if they enter a home treating physical harm they may face a lethal response.
One last comment, this is the true interpretation of our second amendment for those who believe gun ownership is limited to, ‘A well regulated MILITIA’. Here is how our Supreme Court defines the wording, ‘on June 26, 2008, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia’.
The misinterpretation of the wording of, ‘A well regulated MILITIA’, came as a result of copies or the amendment that were made of the original document that had different capitalization and punctuation. Above is the true flavor of its meaning as defined by our Supreme Court.
We already have laws in place to restrict criminals from owning guns, if that worked it would be enough. If they really cared about controlling crime they would do the right thing about illegal immigration, start using manditory minimum sentencing for all violent felons, and dust off those old electric chairs. Guns are useful, murderers aren’t. Every single gun owner I know has too much to loose to do anything stupid with any of their guns. I do most of my shooting at a range. It’s just as much a skill and sport as golf.
As a member of the US Army, I feel hurt when the government tries this type of thing. As we fight and die to spread democracy and freedom, we come back to places that are completely changed. We come back, and all the sudden, we can’t own the civilian model of the gun that we carried for 12+ months. We can’t buy a gun in .50BMG to compete at long range target competitions because some politician wanted to crack down on the violent crime in their area. Most of the guns used in violent crime are NOT legal weapons. An SKS is an Automatic weapon, and as such is a Class III firearm, requiring a background check to purchase legally. Also, it must be pre-80’s in production. What the government ought to do with weapons issues is channel more funds into anti-smuggling operations and law enforcement to help them track down the illegal guns and remove them from the streets. And as to the body armor thing, most police issue is designed to handle handgun rounds and shotguns at a moderate distance. High power rifles were not factored in, because as they are, the weight of the armor increases. Our issued armor provides protection up to .30 cal rifle, but it is heavy and not comfortable on extremely long missions. There is no denying that it works though.
Critter- I agree with you, except that the sks is not an automatic weapon. It is a semiauto rifle chambered in the same cartridge as the AK-47 assault rifle and it’s semi auto variations. The SKS has never been produced with the intention of it being a full auto weapon, and due to it’s design, people that have converted them to full auto have found it to be extremely unreliable and dangerous in full auto. As a semiauto, it’s a very handy, cheap, reliable, and reasonably lightweight rifle chambered in a cheap, commonly available cartridge with similar ballistics to a 30-30, the nation’s most popular deer cartridge. I’m a big fan of my Norinco “para” model.
I have a vintage 1950 Russian SKS. It still has the issuing numbers burnt/pressed into the stock. It is in fact a semi-auto. As the proposed ban currently stands it will still be a legal firearm. The ammo however will be another story. The reality of this issue thought isn’t how do we translate the constitution, but rather what are we going to do about it? If no one opposes it then it will get passed with ease however if it’s challenged and enough people are involved there is a good chance it could be stopped in the supreme court. If it goes to the supreme court there would even be a chance (depending on arguments presented) that such a ban could be classified as unconstitutional, thus preventing any futher attempts of reinstatment of the said ban. Please excuse the misspelling there.
For everyone out there, I DO NOT CONDONE THE WRONGFUL USE OF FIREARMS. BUT…..
People have been killing people since this world was created. Unfortunatly this is something we have always and WILL always have to live with. BUT… Banning assault weapons or all guns will not change a thing. In fact, and you all are more than welcome to check the facts; More people were killed with knives or sharp objects in the years 1994-2004 than with assualt weapons. Roughly only 6.8 percent of violent crime yearly is commited with your EVIL assault weapons. Even if you banned them PEOPLE WILL STILL KILL EACH OTHER. And criminals will still be able get guns anyway- for the most part criminals dont buy there guns from the gun shop. Most will probably steal them or get them off the Street. Someware most of you have never been. The going rate of a stolen Glock 17 – a $500-600 dollar weapon – is around $150 to $200. So if you could in your infinite wisdom tell me why criminals would be stopped by a ban?! Esp. when the can get them cheaper and not have a paper trail leading the police strait to them with or without it. And even if all firearms were banned do you honestly think the police could confiscate every single firearm. I THINK NOT. The EVIL in this world is humanity as a whole. Not guns,knives,drugs or even fast food for example…its what people decide to do with them. Its mans corrupted heart and soul. Men will kill with a stick if he has nothing else. And believe me it bothers me just as much as everybody else. I have a little girl that has to grow up in this world. Scares me to death. But disarming Americans to make you feel better will not change anything. One day war will probably come to this land, hopefully not in my lifetime but its very likely. And who do you think will be there to defend this great land? Our police and military? God bless them, but there streched awful thin these days. The reason we pretty much lost in Vietnam was because of regular plain jane Vietnamese civilian men who took up arms and defended there country. I know there were other reasons but that was one of the main ones. I hope that America is not foolish enough as a whole to do what some of you people want to do. But it would not suprise me a bit. People always want to blame our downfalls on something or someone else. But as for me, I will do whatever is nesessary to defend myself, my family, and my FREEDOM. NO matter what happens I WILL be armed to defend my family and this great land that we live in. Again I DO NOT CONDONE THE WRONGFUL USE OF FIREARMS NOR THE PEOPLE WHO USE THEM. Good luck America and God bless.
The Patriot
So Bleeding_Heart, you mean to tell me you really believe that ALL criminals who commit murders for money and drugs, rob establishments, etc. register there guns or buy them at gun stores or other legitimate means. By saying there would be zero gun crimes if there were a gun ban is in essence what you are saying. How dumb can you be? Gee I guess the black market is just a myth. There are already laws on the book that make it a felony to use a firearm in a crime. Enforcement of existing laws and stiffer penalties is the answer not taking away civil rights. I live in the burbs of Chicago.. you know the murder capital of the US right now. It is illegal to own or purchase a handgun in Chicago or surrounding Cook County. Yet that does not seem to have stopped the huge number of handgun deaths in Chicago. You truly are a genus aren’t you? Just remember when Hitler took over the fist things that went were free speech – 1st amendment, take away the guns – 2nd amendment, formation of the gestapo – Obama’s “civilian security force to be equally funded and prepared as the us military” – The founding fathers understood you could not stand against tyranny if you are not armed. And yes they did understand that there could be a day when the government that they created could turn into one of tyranny. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT more then any other reason – even hunting!
) Bleeding_Heart says:
And I quote…
“A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
“THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is the operative part of the 2nd amendment.
So says the USSC.
Definintion of a militia: –noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
That militia no longer exists having been preempted by the National Guard. The militia was under LOCAL control, the National Guard can be federalized and becomes part of the active military any time the President chooses.
The 2nd amendment isn’t for killing “two-legged tyrants” its for the military.
Wrong. The military doesn’t need an amendment in order to remain armed.
So the NRA interpretation of the 2nd amendment is wrong in saying that everyone is allowed to have a firearm.
You need to get updated. The Supreme Court has affirmed the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The 5th Circuit Court affirmed it in 2000.
I say instead of banning assult weapons, ban all firearms. Reduce gun crime to zero.
As worthwhile as passing a law to outlaw sunrise.
Cazador
Ok guns don’t kill people. People kill people. And the second amendment does not say you get to keep a hunting weapon… it says….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. “…Militia… the right of the people…shall not be infringed” sounds like military type weapon not a lever action 30-30 to me…. Humans will kill one another till the end of time. The question is will the criminal be the only person in the police report that was armed? Not every gun owner is a gang banger look to “cap” him or what ever!!!
Here is an interesting concept. In Switzerland, every male (I think at age 18) must complete some basic military service. After ending their military career, each soldier takes his fully automatic Steyr Aug home. That means that every Swiss household has at least 1 fully automatic weapon (this mandatory military service concept goes back to the First World War, I think).
Does anyone know the answer to this historical question: Only one of all the European countries was neither attacked nor conquered by Nazi Germany, can anyone guess which one that might be?
German generals were not stupid; they knew their assault element could enter, but there would never be a re-supply element that could survive the onslaught of every male (down to the age of 12) being a sniper grade marksman firing downward from an elevated position upon unarmored vehicles and/or dismounted infantry.
I have forgotten the name of the skiing-shooting competition in the Olympics, but guess who usually wins that as well?
I’ll bet with all of those guns there must be incredible amount of crime and serial killers in Switzerland as well. Too bad we never hear about it with our news media. That data would be great fodder for gun control don’t you think?
RC — I ususally keep my trap shut on gun control, but I have another name for an unarmed nation… “prison.”
Robert
Tell RC that the reason Switzerland was not invaded by the Germans in WWII was because it was where the Germans, and everybody else, was storing their stolen gold, diamonds, money and treasures from the countries they invavded and the innocent civilians they killed; not because the Germans feared them.
You have to know by now that congress does not do anything for the benefit of the people.
Just look at the bank bail-outs and the automotive bail-out. They give the money to the rich and take from the poor. The CEO’s fail and then they get more money to fail some more. What’s wrong with our Gov’t????? They have too much power, that’s what.
They have their own agenda. But anyway, banning any firearm will not change crime statistics. Look at crime before firearms…it was horrendous. Criminals will always get what they need to commit crimes. “Where there is a will, there is a way.”
Look at cities where guns are banned and then look at the crime rate. It’s no different than cities with guns..maybe even worse.
I’m glad I already own an AR15. And I ain’t given it up either!!!
I guess it is true what they said in the movie GOD GOLD & GUNS…
I found a copy on firstentertainmentpictures site, but I’m sure you could find it using google or etc…
this ban doesn’t go far enough. the problem isn’t law abiding citizen’s owning guns the problem is bad people having access to guns. We need lisencing to own a gun
and the 2nd amendment says people have the right ot bear arms, it doesn’t say they have the right to bear any kind of arms they want
people don’t have the right to own an ak-47. this ban will easily be upheld in the supream court if it goes there. Also, the originalists on the court use the interpretation of what they think the founding fathers would have wanted. the founding fathers were not advocates of ak-47s
futhermoore, obama said he would do this so long ago and he still won, so obama will definately go all out in his gun-control agenda
If the Gun Control zealots get the President and Congress to pass more gun bans, then the Democrats will lose control of Congress in 2010 just like they did in 1994. For every member of the NRA there are (10) more gun owners that agree with their positions.
if this ban goes through, AGAIN, then hell the constitution might as well be burned and flushed down Americas already clogged can. i cant believe the government and president are trying to ban and take from the American people what they have every right to own. im really hoping this doesnt pass
Ok, so you say you want to ban assult weapons, you want to ban guns…… ok go ahead, but any ban you impose must include not only individual citiznes, any ban must also apply to all law enforcement and militarty officials.
In theory, the argument goes, if you ban assult weapons, there wont be there any more, so why should police have them.
If you ban guns, then police wont need them because no one will have them
Right ?
Because we have made drunk driving illeagal, and of course no one does that any more, unprescibed drugs have been banned, and of course we have no problems with drugs, do we? We have banned racisim, and of course all racists are gone, Goverment bans are just sooo effective.
So if you want to take away my gun, then the police or military dont get them either.
Someone just said that the founding fathers didnt intened for us to have ak 47’s and people are stating the the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with personal firearm ownership, but talks about a well regualted militia.
Ok, well your kind of right and kind of wrong.
1st off, If Geroge washington could have had a milita armed with ak47’s he would have been glad to have had them against the brown bess , 3 shots per minute red coats
People back then , individual citizens owned cannons, individuals owned warships, individuals built forts and raised private armies. Individuals hired mercs to guard there stuff. And this was in the 1700’s, when all of our founding fathers where around. And in fact many of our founding fathers did these same things themselves. So to beleive that they did not beleive in the right of the indivudual to protect himself and his property from enemies both foreign and domestic is horribly wrong.
As to the well armed and regualted militia, well that can be somewhat true, based on persepctive. In those days, and up until not too long ago, the untied States did not have a large standing arming under the control of the federal goverment. The federal govrement for most of its history had a very small profesioanl force. And in the event of war, the federal goverment had to go to the states, and even to indivudal citizens to raise an army of any size. The ferderal goverement could not order or impress the services of the state miltias, it had to ask them for there help. Each state had its own standing military force, under the control of the governer of each state. in addition, individuals could also raise and equip there own miliary forces as well. BTW, the national guard is not a milita as defined in the constiution, it can be pressed into service and is under the direct control ( in many states ) of the federal goverment.
Many of you , I’m sure have seen old civil war movies and such, Most Brigades, corps and divisions where not federal forces, they were the 22nd Maine, 3rd Illinois Cav, etc, etc… Where do you think these guys came from. They came from the states and from indivduals who offered there services.
So to say that the “Well Regualted milita” refers to a standing federal army is very wrong. If you want to take that stance, then you msut agree that each and every state, county and town would be allowed to form its own military force, equip it as it sees fit and be completly autnomis from the federal goverment.
So to those who want to press the issue of the “well regualted milita” which by the way makes reference to this force being independent from federal control, you must be willing to agree that Alamabama could have its own army, that North Dakota could have its own arifoce, that Maine could build a fleet of warships under there own control, and could never be forcibly pressed into service by the federal goverment.
I have a great idea, Licencing we will have everyone who wants a gun be licenced,then everone who wants to speak,then everyone who wants to own a home,car,anything,everyone who wants to vote, and so on. Then when we go to get that license whoever is issueing it can ask if why we need that license and then deny because they dont think there is a need. Then We can just sit down,shut-up and take what ever is given to us like good boys and girls.
Or my choice Die A FREE, POOR, ARMED MAN AND WHEN I CAN NOT LEGALLY EXERSIZE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS I WILL DO SO AS A CRIMINAL.
If they ban these weapons sale there will be nothing left to support the democrats economy
As a lifetime member of the NRA of course I would be against any gun ban of any type. But being an young American citizen I’m not the brightest on any historical issue. Nonetheless I would like to say that a criminal is a criminal if they are using a gun to commit a crime then they have already made that choice to break the law. So using basic logic in this situation states this person that is going to commit the crime is going to do so whether the gun is legal to own or not. Now reading proposed gun bans greatly angers me due to the classification system, I personally would like to know how my father’s beretta Shotgun that is used specifically for dove, ducks, and geese is an assault weapon? Or why is my trusted squirrel rifle an assault weapon?
I don´t know why you Americans are so crazy about keeping up that second amendment, as it only proves that Americans have been idiots right from the start…
I will die before I give up my right to bear arms.