SmallCaliberCentral

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.

Let's get this killed, pronto.

The bill that is.

ETB

exguide67, What did you expect when the democratic's got back in power. That they were just going to let the gun ban go away. It's for your owen safty don't you know. The murder rate has gone sky high here in wi. over the year's. But the democratic that run this state won't give the people the right to carry a gun to protect them self with. It's alway's the same old story about it is going to turn in to the wild west b. s.. You know how it goes right.

Lee: Funny thing is, all the Right to Carry states have had their violent crime and murder rates go down after the enactment of the Right to Carry. Strange how the bozo Demo's pick and choose the statistics that pleases them and suits their arguements eh?

Idiots!

As long as we have gone political (for good reason) for a bit, a personal observation follows: Why in the name of all that is holy, do the Democrats seem more concerned with gun ownership than what I see as the main reason for the criminal use of firearms which would be drug use in general, but more specifically methamphetamines? In the state of Idaho 69 percent of all crimes are linked to this drug.

WP has absolutely nothing to do with crime! it's about control! no tyrant can rule so long as there is an armed populace! it's never about crime that's just the excuse used! if it was really about crime we'd be like switzerland were they issue arms to the people!

Crazymedic, While I respect your opinion, I have to respectfully disagree. The people who elect pro gun control politicians are not looking to create a tyrannical government. They are inundated with negative information about violence and crime as it relates to firearms on a continual basis. They form an opinion based on the information that is available to them. Consider the person who has never held a firearm, no one in their family or anyone they know owns a firearm. They don’t associate people like you and I with firearms. They associate firearms with the video of the cop getting machine gunned to death on the roof at Waco. They remember the shoot out in LA with the guys with full body armor and thousands of rounds of ammo holding the whole LAPD at bay. They look at the guy with a rifle rack in the window of his truck and the “Pry it from my cold dead fingers” bumper sticker as a nut. The probability of changing this person’s view of guns is low. They just think different than we do. What these people want is some level of security for themselves and their family. They are not going to go out and buy an AR and stick it in the corner of the bedroom and provide themselves with that feeling of security. They want someone else to take care of them, so they elect the people who tell them what they want to hear.
We must all remember that a group of people are usually stereotyped by the lowest common denominator in that group. We do it to the gun control people and they do it to us. The only way to survive this thing is to approach it as a group with some dignity and intelligence. The bumper sticker dude is gaining us nothing.

Whistlepig: You hit the nail on the head. We went through this same type of crap out here in Canada. The Liberals were more concerned about farmer Joe's guns than they were about controlling crime all to appease the majority of the voting population who do not interact with firearms at all. The cost was supposed to be minimal (around a million) and turned out costing the taxpayers BILLIONS and still rising. There are major flaws in the system and as you can probably guess, the criminals are not registering their guns.