Not Interested

February 22, 2007
5:03 AM CST

So, children, your task for today is to study the list of semi-auto rifles on the list contained in the latest version of the Assault Weapons Ban, and see how many of them you own:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
`(ii) AR-10;
`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
`(iv) AR70;
`(v) Calico Liberty;
`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
`(xi) M1 Carbine;
`(xii) Saiga;
`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
`(xv) SLG 95;
`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
`(xvii) Steyr AUG;
`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
`(xix) Tavor;
`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

For myself, only my M1 Carbine fits the bill—not that I care, because regardless of what the stupid and un-Constitutional law says, I would just ignore it anyway.

At first I thought an SKS with a 5-round fixed mag (which I will own shortly) would slip under the net, but here’s where it gets caught:

`(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.’.

Ah yes, the old “sporting purposes” nonsense. Like we’d be fooled into thinking that they’d quit once they got to sporting rifles. After banning the scary-looking assault rifles, the next item would be “sniper weapons”. Oh, and I’ll get my hands on an SKS even if they are banned.

All the other scary cosmetic features are reintroduced: barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, hi-cap mags, blah blah blah.

The bill number is H.R. 1022 (yeah, ironic, isn’t it?), and it was introduced by GFW Extraordinaire Carolyn McCarthy of NYFC, whose late husband was killed on the NYFC subway system by a man who used not an assault rifle, but a handgun, and, moreover, a handgun legally purchased (but not legally carried, because, duh, this took place in NYFC).

This sick excuse for a law is never going to pass, even with the Marxists controlling Congress, because in its previous incarnation, the AWB had no effect on crime, but it did have an effect on its supporters’ reelection prospects.

With that in mind, feel free to contact your Congressweasel and make your displeasure known. Then go ahead and order up an AK or HK-91 (or both) and some high-cap mags during the next few months, just so that the media can report that sales of said items are soaring and the GFWs like McCarthy, Schumer and Feinstein can eat their livers with frustration.

By the way, and just in passing, I should note that Republican POTUS-wannabes Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney both support the AWB and would sign it into law.

Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

My answer to your question is not enough.  The banned list is a good checklist for ownership IMHO.  McCarthy is a major moron, but can be smart.  She and her ilk will never have my guns.

Author ID: 6444 | 2/22/2007 05:17 AM CST | #82353


McCarthy’s husband was killed while riding the Long island RR, not the subway.  She rode this to a new carreer.  If only one person were legally armed on that train, Collin Furgison probably would have only gotten off a shot or two instead of being able to shoot people cowering in their seats.

Author ID: 1119 | 2/22/2007 05:20 AM CST | #82354


Grrrrrrrrrrr......

I had a four paragraph comment typed up but deleted it after re-reading it.  The only comment I’ll make is to those of you who sat out the last election to ‘punish’ the Republicans: actions (or lack thereof) have consequences, and this is a consequence of the Democrats being handed both houses of Congress.

Author ID: 593 | 2/22/2007 05:22 AM CST | #82355


Kim,

I’m here in the PC of MD, so I can’t buy hi-caps anyway, at least, not EEEVVVIIIILLLLL ones for those terrible assault rifles. Fortunately, the baby-boxes I can legally purchase are generally built in such a way that I can pull the blocking bar or rod out anyway - with little or no problems.

Notice that the M-1 CARBINE is listed, but NOT the even MORE deadly M-1 Garand; I guess the extra inches means it’s NOT an assault rifle?
Just between us, If I had to go toe-to-toe with one of them, I’d rather tangle with the Carbine. Especially if I get a full-size M-anything; 1, 14, 16 - any of those three, and I OWN the carbine user because I have a longer range accuracy. Of course, if we get into the M-4/MP-5K/etc. crowd, then that M-1 Carbine is going to rule the roost.
Caliber isn’t as important as range until you get inside EVERYONE’S effective accuracy range; THEN is when the BIG bullets take over.

IMHO.

See ya!

Jim

Author ID: 8889 | 2/22/2007 05:26 AM CST | #82356


Kim - I did contact my congess filth about HR1022.  I went to the NRAILA website and could not find a word about it.  Are they behind the curve, is the bill too new for their huge buraucracy to respond to just yet, or is it just another “compromise”?  NRA members please set me straight...Thank you.

Author ID: 7641 | 2/22/2007 05:37 AM CST | #82357


Hey, the M1 and M1A don’t have evil pistol grips, so they don’t have to be banned.

If you want to follow this bill’s death in the Judiciary Committee (which is almost always what happens to bills with no cosponsors), or read the official copy, click here for the H.R.1022 text page at Thomas. The “Bill Summary & Status” page is where you can see what’s up.

Think we can convince Mrs. McCarthy that the proper way to clean her shotgun is to put the barrel in her mouth and pull the trigger?

Author ID: 7777 | 2/22/2007 05:55 AM CST | #82358


If this bill were to make it past the floors, (not unlikely given the Republican penchant for socialism) and got to Bush’s desk he’d sign it in a heartbeat. Guess I’ll move up my next purchase date.

Author ID: 8526 | 2/22/2007 06:53 AM CST | #82361


Use this link to find your representative.

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

Author ID: 9375 | 2/22/2007 07:11 AM CST | #82363


I bought an evil Bushmaster 16” XM15 last weekend because of this specifically. What weapons on the list are cheap? The XM certainly was not.

Author ID: 9155 | 2/22/2007 07:19 AM CST | #82364


What is the difference in witholding a vote for the ex-Czar of NYC, if he is the only choice over the Pantsuit, and the ‘Conservatives’ (Self Satisfying Dipsticks) who sat out the last mid-term elections?

I know that voting for a Yankee Putz Salon Repbulican like Mr. Gulliani will set bad pecedent and increase the angle of the slippery slope that will accelerate the Republican parties slide to the Left on social issues and the preservarion of individual rights, but what else should one do when faced with the choice of either having to hold your breath on 2A issues during another RINO Presidential administration, and allowing a obscurantist Marxist whore for power acsend to the Presidency unchallenged?

The MSM seems to have already chosen the Republican Primary ballot for us, hell, Halley Barbour, the Governer of Mississippi, just conceded the nomination of Gulliani on Fox News as I type. People on the Right side of the blogodphere better get on the stick quick because this thing may be over by August.

Ideallistically, we need a true Conservative candidate to focus our energies on, a person who will focus peoples emotions and energy to the degree and intensity that were recently applied to the Zumbo affair, however, speaking realistically, nominating a true fire in the belly Conservative will not attract the votes of the spineless fence sitters who form forty percent of the electorate, causing them to flop over to the Stalinist Haridan who has been posturing as a moderate since she carpet bagged her way into the Senate. Maybe this is for the best in the grand scheme: If she doesn’t completely enslave or destroy the Country, there may be a true enduring Conservative movment after her passing. 

It has been said, “ We do after all, get the government we deserve”, and from my unelevated vantage in a typical short sighted Blue City - if I may paraphrase Marie Antoinette - “Let them eat sh!t”, albeit that of the creation of their own ignorance and laziness.

I think am not being apathetic, just presenting the reality of our choices as they stand today. If we can field another person who is merely half of what Ronald Reagan was, I will support that man or woman whole heartedly. If that person only takes thirty percent of the vote, we have made a start just by steering the Republican party back to its correct path. If however, this candidate doesn’t exist or is left out due to lack of action aginst the MSM’s usurpation of the nomination process, I will have to think hard about pulling the lever for a candidate who will make me hold my breath in supsense over the Constitution, or one who know will cause me to hyperventilate in anticipation of a disaster that would occur sooner than later with the other choice. 

Give Rick Santorum a ring, his website is still up.

Sorry for any bad punctuation or spelling, I am typing on a Motorola Q. My grammar is another thing entirely: product of an open school experiment back in the seventies.

Author ID: 1894 | 2/22/2007 07:19 AM CST | #82365


The banned list is a good checklist for ownership IMHO.

Roger That.

Author ID: 9021 | 2/22/2007 07:22 AM CST | #82366


I’ve just e-mailed my 2 Senators and my Rep. I hope all of the rest of you will do this as well. It only took about 7 minutes.

Author ID: 944 | 2/22/2007 07:48 AM CST | #82370


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.’.

my head hurts after reading this sentence, not from a RCOB just from the sentence form itself.

Author ID: 7518 | 2/22/2007 08:15 AM CST | #82378


Well, I had to make a few checkmarks and one ? on the list (Are they mistaking the AR-7 as an ‘AR70’?), so I might just have to make a different purchase on BAG day; instead I’ll have to buy a Gonzales flag, specifically the modern one.

Author ID: 1257 | 2/22/2007 08:15 AM CST | #82379


So, the Mini-30 is not listed? Ssssshhh! Don’t say that too loud!

Author ID: 82 | 2/22/2007 08:43 AM CST | #82389


Four! Only Four! I must be doing something wrong

Does a CETME Qualify as a HK-91, after all it is its forebear?

I guess an M1A1 is much less lethal than a HK-91?

I don’t trust the Donks on bit but I think they feel that gun issues are the 3rd rail, so to speak, that they are not interested in touching now.

I posted this on my blog,(Which I would be honored by a link from your blog) on the 19th:

”No Co-Sponsors, perhaps this will die in committee, but you might want to buy that AK just in case!’

Bob

Author ID: 9351 | 2/22/2007 09:05 AM CST | #82395


Twelve currently.
Amusingly enough, six were purchased prefertly legally in California. But that was prior to 1989, when the Golden State went from being a relatively free state to an unconstitutional authoritarian sump.

Author ID: 7522 | 2/22/2007 09:15 AM CST | #82398


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

IANL (thank God), but if I read that correctly, then all the government has to do to ban a particular rifle or shotgun is to buy it for either the FBI or the military and *bam* it’s now illegal for the public to purchase it.

Author ID: 8639 | 2/22/2007 09:40 AM CST | #82404


I called my Rep, the Honorable Michael Burgess.  I’ve called him on similar matters before.  Like good ol’ Sam Johnson right beneath us, he will fight it.

Here it’s a bit like the choir preaching to the preacher when it comes to guns.

Author ID: 8569 | 2/22/2007 09:46 AM CST | #82407


Does the Romak3/PSL, count as a Dragunov?

Why is the M1 carbine on the list?  Does the 15 round magazine make it more deadly then the SVT-40, G43, Fn49 MAS44/49 and M1 rifle from the same era? 

Oh wait, the M1, SVT-40, G43, MAS44/49 and FN49 can still fall under provision L.  After all they were originally designed for military use.  If this wonderful piece of shit legislation passes, they are banned if the Attorney General says so.

Author ID: 9544 | 2/22/2007 10:00 AM CST | #82409


It doesn’t really matter what guns are listed, this is just opus 1.  If something like this ever gets passed, wait ‘til you see the next incarnation. 

The epic changes the pols have in store for America in the dark corners of their socilist/communist minds can’t occur with an armed populace.  Or at least it can’t occur as quickly as they’d like.  Things like this will keep getting brought up again and again until it passes.  They can suffer a hundred defeats of this nonsense, but they only need one victory.  Of course, the big flaw is their hubris in believing that a law passed means a problem solved.  With the gun issue, nothing could be further from the truth.
DAL357

Author ID: 9405 | 2/22/2007 10:17 AM CST | #82411


Just sent my US House Rep, John Culberson, an e-mail about this issue.  Very responsive rep.

Funny, I spent some time looking at all the issues and came up with, pretty much, the same conclusion you did.  If the person supports the right to defend yourself and is pro gun ownership, the seemed to meet all the other criteria I was looking for.  About 4 months before the election I started talking that up with friends and others I knew.  At least in my area, all the candidates that were elected were the ones I supported.

I know I didn’t do it all, however, I do know that several people changed their vote to pro-gun and pro-self-defense candidates after talking to me.

Keep up the good work.

Author ID: 8232 | 2/22/2007 10:23 AM CST | #82412


Yes, Romanian Romaks/PSL would fall under it as well

“(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:”

Same w/ my (in the process of purchasing) NDM-86.

I’m in a double whammy. While the federal one most likely doesn’t have a chance, I’m in the People’s Republic of Illinois which is pushing it’s own.

Author ID: 8358 | 2/22/2007 10:40 AM CST | #82417


While the M1 Garand is not listed, I think if you read the definitions that it would be considered an assault rifle under the porposed law. 

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

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.”

A Garand is a semi-auto rifle.  It does not accept a detachable magazine as we know it, but what does the bill define a detachable magazine as? 

”`(38) Detachable Magazine- The term `detachable magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that can readily be inserted into a firearm.”

Sounds like an En Bloc clip to me.  Notice there is no 10 round magic number this time on the magazine size.

Do most Garands have a threaded barrel?  I can’t recall, but I’m pretty sure that the upper handguard could be found to be a barrel shroud by their definition:

”`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud’ means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.”

This time all it takes is a detachable magazine and one item on their list to make something an assault weapon. 

In addition to the M1 Garand, I think this bill would classify every semi-auto .50 BMG rifle as an assault rifle, since they take detachable magazines and everyone that I have looked at has an AR15 pistol grip on it.

Author ID: 324 | 2/22/2007 11:11 AM CST | #82423


Two corrections - It was the Long Island Rail Road - NOT NYC Subway
and She’s from Long Island (Nassau County) - Not NYC

That said - we have our own Idjuts here in the City.  I vote against them, try to talk my friends into voting against them, and try to convince my wife that we REALLY don’t want to live in NYC - but every place she wants to move has gun laws as bad or WORSE

Author ID: 7736 | 2/22/2007 11:19 AM CST | #82426


The AR70 was a rifle Beretta made in the 1970s.  linky

Author ID: 324 | 2/22/2007 11:21 AM CST | #82427


I’ve got an AR, and probably a couple of others that’d back-doored because of features.  They’re getting none of them unless they have a temperature considerably in excess of that of my body.

Regarding politics:  People don’t seem to understand that in a system that is extremely biased toward one of two parties winning every single election, you have to restrict voting for your ideal candidate to the primaries.  Once you get to the general election you almost always have a choice between someone who is so-so at best on the one hand vs. someone who is outright evil, incompetent, etc.  Given the choice, I’ll choose the lesser of two evils every time.  Sitting the election out, or voting for some 3rd party with no chance of winning - either in hopes of “sending a message” - is about as sensible as pissing into a hurricane.  Didn’t conservatives learn anything from the 1992 election? 

Politics is the art of the possible - you (or people similar to you) have to win, to be in office, to actually have a chance of doing something right (or not doing something gravely wrong).  Does anyone really think that staying home next November because Gunbaniani isn’t ideologically pure, and thereby guaranteeing that he loses to Hitlery, will be good for this country or for the NOR?  What kind of laws and regulations, what kind of judges, will we see under a Hitlery administration?  I know, in my bones, that I’ll be as aggravated as Hell if Rudy gets in...but at least the conservative members of the Stupid Party will be able to see or talk to him, to let him know that X might be a fine policy for NYC, but not for “flyover” country.  Hitlery won’t give any conservatives the right time of day, let alone serious consideration.  Hitlery’s AG will go out of his/her/its way to ban every gun possible under a new AWB, whereas Rudy MAY (repeat MAY) just let things slide in order to have conservative support for various other initiatives.

What would you rather have in your kitchen, a hungry rat or a hungry tiger?  THAT is the choice between the leading Republicans and the leading Dems next year.  There are no Reagans running this year, not unless Duncan Hunter makes a lot of progress.  Newt is unelectable.  Who else is there in ‘08???

Author ID: 7384 | 2/22/2007 11:33 AM CST | #82430


Hmm, so the Attorney General has the last say, does he? Isn’t that a seat of appointment? Doesn’t this mean that essentially any gun can be tacked on by the AG at whim?

As far as I can tell, Gonzales views the constitutional rights set forth by the BoR as a completely surmountable roadblock, and NOT the law of the land. He views it as something to be circumvented, not obeyed and used as a guideline for behavior. And he’s supposedly conservative. I can only imagine what the views of an AG put in place by a Democrat President, or even a Republican President like Romney would be like.

And the M1 and M1As not being banned? So what? They don’t specifically mention a Rock River CAR-15, or a number of other “AR” clones, either - it’s not technically an AR-15, now is it (as that’s the official Armalite designation for a Stoner-designed rifle)? Careful - look at that clause about the AG again. He can ban them at whim. I wouldn’t be surprised if the practical application is that any firearm could be added, at whim.

Author ID: 8152 | 2/22/2007 11:48 AM CST | #82432


The M1 COULD be banned since it was procured by the US military and “originally designed for military or law enforcement use”, even though it’s a rebuttable presumption.  It fits with right in section “L” definitions.

Author ID: 2187 | 2/22/2007 12:18 PM CST | #82439


I had a Galil 308 on order the night of Bush Sr.’s televised national address banning assault weapons.  I phoned the dealer and asked if this would affect my order; sure he said, instead of 700 dollars it will now be 1600 dollars : (

Author ID: 7914 | 2/22/2007 12:30 PM CST | #82444


Looks like they could also manage to get any rifle or shotgun that military or law enforcment might procure. I know a deputy with a lever action 30/30 in his truck. I also know a local cop with a single shot 410 in his car. And look at all the bolt action/scoped “sniper rifles” around. Dosn’t seem like we’ll be left with anything left that will be “sporting”

Looks like I’ll finely have to get a couple 1860 Colt Army revolvers, and a muzzel loading shotgun for the house, already have a rifle.

We really to get after our “congress people” on this, like they are Jim Zumbo.

Author ID: 8022 | 2/22/2007 12:53 PM CST | #82447


The bit about determining that a firearm is deemed unsutable for sporting purposes if it is used by a government agency should be refered to as the Serf Clause of the Bill. Considering the intent of the Second Amendment to be as a hedge against tyrannical rule, the Serf Clause should be viewed as Prima Facia unconstitutional. Now, if you combine this supression of Natural Rigts with campaign finance laws being written to include bloggers, new FCC regs. concerning equal time, and lthe leftist assault on the Electoral College system currently under way in individual State’s legislatures, there will then no longer exist an effectve reprensentation in developed law of the safeguards against tyranny enumerated in the first two articles of The Bill of Rights. Furthermore, with all of the current musheads in the middle of the electorate, we will then have a de facto tyranny of the left.

What remains then for the preservation of this Republic? Nailing tracts to lamposts to inform the enfranchised? Your Xerox machine will be next if you become effective as a pamphleter in that Leftist’s wet dream of a world

Calling your Reps. is not enough. This will not pass this time aroumd. However, they will keep repeating their lies until enough of us believe the lies for them to eventually be sucessful.

We must have louder voices than they: Truckers, construction workers, factory workers, service wotrkers, et al, are a great part of that middle, and for a grater part, due to no fault of their own; are uninformed about political realities. They, for the most part, are not “logged on”. Therefore, the time for the distribution of simple tracts appealing to their inherent sense of Freedom and Self-Determination may well be already at hand. It is a necessity if they are to recive enlightenment counter to the leftist propaganda sent out in union newsletters and nightly MSM newscasts and sitcoms.

There is no sugar daddy on the correct side of the political spectrum such as S@r@$ on the evil side to finance and staff such an educational campaign. Therefore, we as individuals must inform the people we interact with on a daily basis by all means available to each us, least we fall too far and catastrophe ensues.

Author ID: 1894 | 2/22/2007 12:58 PM CST | #82448


Of course, the semi autos without the pistol grip but with the bayonet lug make it much easier to perpetrate the much-feared drive-by bayonettings that led to the AWB in the first place, and the butt-stroke to the jaw, which, while so deserved, the libtards seem to fear less than a black painted plastic weapon.

The other thing is if the sporting purpose rule were applied outside of the shooting sports, we might not have baseball or cricket, since the wooden/aluminum implements have a non-sporting purpose even though the implements are suitable for a sporting purpose (I shouldn’t give them any ideas even though TV baseball and cricket are billion dollar industries).

Author ID: 2303 | 2/22/2007 01:08 PM CST | #82451


I’m sure that this bill exempts police departments from it’s restrictions. If you own an AR-15, it’s an “assault weapon”; if the police use it, it’s a “patrol rifle”. It’s not the guns themselves that are evil, the real “problem” is YOU owning one. Always remember that federasts LOVE guns, as long as they are being carried by some type of gummint employee.

Author ID: 8050 | 2/22/2007 01:29 PM CST | #82453


“Does the Romak3/PSL, count as a Dragunov?”

I don’t think so. It has more in common with the RPK and AK. It was also designed for military use, has a pistol grip and detachable magazine. They’ll find some reason to ban it, don’t you worry.

Author ID: 9291 | 2/22/2007 01:50 PM CST | #82457


The answer to all the “why is this rifle on the list?” queries:

A bunch of moonbats sat down with whatever firearms magazines they could buy at Borders, and just wrote down the names of whatever evil looking firearms they happened to see.

There is no rhyme or reason here ... if any firearms were left off the list, it was because they didn’t see a picture of it in one of the magazines they bought.

Author ID: 1358 | 2/22/2007 02:02 PM CST | #82458


I am seriously considering the purchase of a PTR 91 now and putting my next couple handgun purchases off for a little while because of this nonsense. The fact is, once I have it I ain’t giving it up...ban or no ban. Congress can pass all the laws they want, but I’m not giving up what’s already mine. It pisses me off though that the elected asshats in Washington are working at determining when and what I buy.

What really chaps my ass is that our so-called betters even have the unmitigated gall to treat the very people that pay their salaries as subjects. They are elected and sent to Washington to do the people’s business. They swear an oath to uphold the constitution, not to subvert, reinterpret, or flat out ignore the constitution. Any one of them that brings a bill like this to the floor (much less sign it) should be immediately recalled and tossed out on their ear - for the simple reason that they broke their oath and are no longer capable of upholding their oath of office and maintaining the public trust. Just because a large percentage of voters want something doesn’t mean they can have it. The bill of rights wasn’t put there as a speed bump, but rather a wall against tyranny. “Sporting purposes” is nowhere to be found...anywhere...much less in the second amendment. Just who the hell are these people that have determined that We The People cannot be trusted with firearms (sporting or otherwise)? No gun ban has ever proven to be effective and, yet, there is always someone that thinks another one will be the magic one that stops crime. Murder and robbery is ALREADY against the law...regardless of the tools used. And the idea that if guns are removed from the picture, the means of comitting the crime will evaporate at the same time is just plain stupid. If an illustration needs to be made - consider Sept 11, 2001, 9 men commandeered 4 airliners with pen knives and box cutters...not a single gun among them.

Our elected officials need to be reminded that they are not our betters and we are not their subjects.

Author ID: 7486 | 2/22/2007 03:35 PM CST | #82466


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,

Heh.

I can hear the Zumbos of the world thinking “this is just for the yahoos with the assault rifles, it won’t affect my beloved Remington 700”.

Little do they know that the Army’s M24 and the USMC’s M40 sniper rifles are Remington 700’s with some customizing done by military armorers and a new name.

This thing needs to die.

Author ID: 353 | 2/22/2007 06:17 PM CST | #82477


I noticed they listed the Ruger Mini-14 by name this time.  I guess since Ol Bill ain’t around to shill for them this time ala Zumbo they don’t need throw him a bone.

Author ID: 85 | 2/22/2007 06:25 PM CST | #82478


I second the guess that this will die in committee, but taking nothing for granted I still hope everyone contacts their congresscritter to oppose it.  I heard a radio interview with an activist on the left once, who was told by a Congressional staffer that they estimate every person who telephones represents roughly 1000 voters who share their views but weren’t worked up enough to call.  Sometimes as few as 40 to 50 contacts can sway a congresscritter.

If it did come to the floor, it would be interesting to see how the supposed blue-dog democrats voted on it, since they ran on pro-gun platforms.  I suspect Pelosi would prefer not to test that herself, although again, I take nothing for granted.

Author ID: 9368 | 2/22/2007 06:57 PM CST | #82482


RE: Presidential ‘08 candidates

All has been said that I can think of regarding this worthless bill, so I won’t repeat it.

Somthing that should be mentioned though, is regarding Sam Adams’ post, above.  Paraphrasing, “we make our choices in the primaries”. 

He hasn’t been “blessed” by the media, but one of our Texas Reps has recently entered the race… Ron Paul.

Technically, Paul is a RINO - but not in the normal sense of the term.  He ran for Pres in (I think) ‘88, on the LIBERTARIAN ticket, and got (iirc) around 400k votes.

Realizing 3rd party candidates don’t win, he switched to the Republican party, and won a seat in the House.

He’s been called The Taxpayer’s Best Friend for something like 10 years running, for his opposition to big government and big taxes, and bases his votes on bills on whether they meet Constitutional muster (ie, often NO).

The media isn’t paying him any attention at all compared to Rudy and McCain, but, like Sam Adams said, the primaries are where we make our decisions.

Check out Ron Paul, and see if you think he’s a better choice than the disgusting RINOs McCain and Giulianni.

If nothing else, an off-the-beaten-path candidate who loses a primary, but gets a significant amount of votes, can influence the primary winner to try to pick up the people who gave those votes.

Author ID: 685 | 2/22/2007 10:11 PM CST | #82493


Aaron,

He isn’t a better choice than Giuliani and McCain, except on the gun issue. Certainly, in terms of foreign policy, he’s horrible.

0 Author ID: 1 | 2/23/2007 12:01 AM CST | #82499


What Kim said re Ron Paul. This would be a bad time to elect an isolationist. Heck, was there ever a good time to elect an isolationist?

For me, the 2nd is major, but not a deal-breaker. I’ll accept a President who’s iffy (not anti) on the 2nd if he’s strong on everything else I consider important, and will focus on Congress to keep the stupidity from getting out of hand (this is the kind of thing the NRA is well-suited for).

Especially if the alternative is a known anti. If both candidates suck on the 2nd, the deciding factor will be the other issues, but I’m not going to stay home again… I learned my lesson.

Author ID: 353 | 2/23/2007 12:35 AM CST | #82500


I just did my emails.  But this is Texas so I just emailed 3 Republicans who probably already know what they think about this.

Author ID: 8495 | 2/23/2007 12:36 AM CST | #82501


Having browsed this bill, it seems that the intent of the author is to re-enact the AWB from 1994.  While they have updated the window dressings, it is essentially the same piece of legislation (magazine restrictions, pistol grips, etc.) that tanked the last time around.  Now, this might seem like cause for alarm, especially due to the success of the previous AWB (wink), but does this consititute an infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights?

I submit that it does.  The nature of the 2nd is that freedom must be righteously defended from time to time.  An armed civilian population is a bulwark against tyranny.  Hence, for the government to implement “suitable” measures, like land redistribution, they must first remove the people’s ability to resist such changes.  Politicians, Republican or Democrat, are too invested in the MI complex to act in the best interests of their constituents.

“Speak, my hands, for me.”

Author ID: 9647 | 2/23/2007 07:48 AM CST | #82539