|
H.R.1022 - Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, 18 February 2007 |
Details- Sponsor - McCarthy
- Proposed - February 13, 2007
- Congressional Record Link - H.R.1022
- Amends - None.
- Amendments - None.
- Vote - None yet.
- Results - No change in law.
StatusFebruary 13, 2007 - Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. March 19, 2007 - Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
SynopsisH.R.1022 is much closer to the 109th House Bill 1312, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005, than it is to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. - The list of weapons prohibitted by name is greatly expanded.
- In 1994, a list of attributes determined whether or not a gun was a 'semiautomatic assault weapon'. Two attributes were required. Under H.R.1022, only one attribute is required.
- The attributes defining 'assault weapon' is greatly expanded. Barrel shrouds are now included in the defining attributes for an 'assault weapon', so this bill could be considered the Hughes Amendment equivalent for evil, black rifles.
- All transfers of 'large capacity feeding devices' are prohibited.
- Private transfers of assault weapons are prohibitted.
- Conversion kits can not be owned. If you own a a postban firearm, whatever that looked like, you could not own a pistol grip or barrel shroud that would turn it into an 'assault weapon'.
Finally, read carefully the catch-all for 'assault weapon' attributes: (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 enfocement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
AnalysisThe rights of the people predate the Constitution and continue to this day. That does not stop Congress from trying to diminish that idea in people's minds. The message underlying this entire bill is that the Bill of Rights can be increasing limited by passage of laws. According to United States vs. Miller (1938), military weapons are specifically protected by the Second Amendment. But those very weapons are targetted by this bill. As all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns have their design history in military weapons, this bill could be the death of all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The bottom line is that this bill is a disaster, in no uncertain terms. The unabashed gun grabbers should consider this bill a step toward nirvana. The Congressional Record summary indicates a ten year expiration.
|
Written by beerslurpy on 2007-02-21 02:50:49
I've pointed this out elsewhere, but....
The original bill only passed because:
-they watered it down greatly to get support
-a lot of dems who thought it was political suicide were convinced by clinton that gun owners wouldnt vote
What is different is that:
-congress is overall far more progun on both sides of the aisle
-democrats know that clinton was wrong about being safe from the voters
And most importantly, this bill is over the top bad. It is designed to not attract support from anyone. If it looked somewhat reasonable, a lot of "pro-gun" dems might be suckered into praising it and thus get exposed to their constituents. | Do I misunderstand section 2?
Written by akeyboardanda45 on 2007-02-21 13:12:04
"SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT FOR 10 YEARS OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES."
I understood this to mean that the provisions would be reinstated for 10 years, therefore a possible sunset. Am I wrong? | Very Unclear
Written by admin on 2007-02-21 14:25:43
Since the titles are not actually inserted into code, I believe what you reference is meaningless. No where does the bill give an effective date or an expiration date / time period. | What about current kits?
Written by hardwarz on 2007-02-28 22:34:42
If I were to purchase 3 or 4 AR lowers tomorrow and set them aside, does that count as previously owned?
Hardwarz | Also unclear
Written by admin on 2007-03-06 23:29:42
If the lower were considered a SAW, it may be feasible.
If the lower is not a SAW, then just buying the parts to finish the firearm would be a violation under conversion kit prohibition. | Update - 10 Year Extension
Written by admin on 2007-03-07 00:24:20
The 10 year extension MAY be part of the reinstatement of the 1994 awb. Still unclear. |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
