Bearjing

They've gone and done it now... pissing off corporate America? There's a way to get your jihad handed to you.

Why is it that gun crimes impugn all gun owners, but McVeigh didn't make all chemists outlaws? A gun is a tool for good or for evil-- who stands behind it determines which one.

Sorry about the link, seem to be having issues w/ the URL's Thomas is generating. Here's the bill summary page. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01784: Here's the current definition of "Armor Piercing". The definition was changed with the 1994 "crime bill", but I'm pretty sure so-called armor piercing rounds for handguns have been banned for longer. I don't like them being banned, but just the same, this definition isn't open to political BS like the attorney general's opinion on "minimum LE body armor standards" are. It looks to me like 1784 would replace this sta

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.....;/~c110tniYsf:: To prohibit citizens from owning the FN FiveseveN or any 5.7 x 28mm SS190 and SS192 cartridges, and `© any other handgun that uses armor piercing ammunition. It don't think the bill actually defines armor piercing except referencing "minimum standards for LE use determined by AG". The body armor standards are downright awful and at least historically, based on terrible testing standards. This bill authorizes further testing to determine which calibers would be considered "armor piercing". In time, I have no doubt t

Who is John Galt?

Scary... " allow the State Police to inspect private homes for compliance"

It's a prohibitionists dream! Only crazies want guns. If you try to buy a gun, you must be crazy. If you're crazy, you fail Brady and can't buy the gun. So just by showing up to buy one, you automatically fail Brady and are barred from buying it -- no background check required.

Is it too soon to say that it's a good thing they have such stringent gun laws in New York or somebody might have gotten hurt?

Generally, people on generally pro-gun sites seem to regard this law as nothing more than "Forcing the states to abide by the law as it already exists". It really isn't quite that, but it does change the incentive structure to make it more appealing for the states to send data to NICS. Apparently a lot of otherwise like minded people think that's an OK move for the federal government to make, even if it costs many millions of dollars of tax payer dollars, has a marginal (at best) effect on safety, further enshrines the idea that restrictions on the right to bear arms are acceptable, discourage

I'm against background checks, period. I believe they're a form of prior restraint which prevents people from exercising their RIGHT to bear arms. If people have the right to defend themselves, then people have the right to defend themselves-- and that goes for 45 year olds who were convicted of a felony at age 19, as well as those who were committed to a mental hospital, say, after being brutally raped. I get it that it's easy to come up with reasons why this guy or that gal isn't worth to bear arms -- I have my idea of what the standards should be and I'm sure everyone else does to. But if i

This legislation has failed multiple times before, but is being fast tracked after VTech. H.R. 297: Expanding the records included in the NICS database. The bill provides a variety of incentives for states (I think it's 250,000,000 per state) to catalog and report additional records to the NICS system. The Federal government cannot mandate the states to report this information because such a requirement oversteps the bounds set for the federal government by the constitution. (The supreme court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to supply this information to the Fed.)

Nothing except that they can't use it as ammunition on the nightly news to indoctrinate those who don't understand the meaning of "non=scientific".

From the gunownersalliance web site Suzanna Hupp -- A Daughter's Regret Suzanna Gratia Hupp will live the rest of her life with regret. Had she been carrying her gun the day a madman executed her parents while she cowered helplessly and then fled, she is convinced she could have stopped one of the worst massacres in U.S. history. She has told the story many times over. Tomorrow she will relate it again before advocates of gun rights in a counter-rally to the Million Mom March. Put yourself in her shoes, she asks, and then think again whether gun control is the answer. It w

Bay news 9 Gun Control Poll http://www.baynews9.com/Home.html

This legal stuff is tricky and I don't want to claim I understand it all, but below is the text of 922(w) prior to it's sunset -- this is referenced a bunch in the "new" magazine bad legislation. Paragraph 2 addresses previously manufactured mags. Since this is actually from the text of the Clinton bad, it appears it would work in the same way, allowing existing mags to be used, purchased etc. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything in the "new" HR 1969 that would repeal paragraph 2. Don't get me wrong, it's BAD law and I think we should all fight against it hard, but I do think it

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 16, 2007 Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007'. SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF REPEALED CRIM

I'm loving watching our numbers climb....

The text is now available. I gather that the first part puts the old 10 round limit on magazine capacity back into force. It also seems to prohibit the purchase of semi-automatics "with" large capacity magazines. I'd love some lawyer-types opinion on what this means: `(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'. Is this "no sales at the same time", or "no sales if a hi-cap magazine exists"?

We're gaining but still behind. 55% to 44% right now 95 votes to 76 votes.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-...ports-headlines We're loosing! Help!

Another bill -- this one is to disallow gun show sales without background checks. H.R. 96 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-96

I've seen a few threads with a link to the Brady emailer. People are changing the Brady emailer's default text, then using it to sending emails out to their legislators. I wanted to provide another option just in case Brady counts users as pro gun control, or if legislators just count everything from their address as being pro gun control. Gun owners of america also has an emailer -- it isn't as intuitive as the Brady one, but it's useable. Personally, I use it anyway if I'm going to email instead of printing letters-- I don't want to run the risk of being counted as a Brady nut by my leg

This is an attempt to accomplish in small steps what is harder to accomplished all at once. Fight this one just as hard as HR1022.

My stack of letters to legislators is so tall it's becoming absurd. Here's the govTrack link -- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1859