SinistralRifleman 0 Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 We can stay on the defensive and die a death of 1,000 cuts slowly over the course of our life times, or we can go on the offensive and try to reclaim what has been taken from us. E-mail your reps, ask them to co-sponsor this bill. Ensure it has a hearing. HR1022 is gaining sponsors every week. We cannot stand back and wait for the opposition to dictate to use where to spend our time and resources, we must turn the tables on them. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1096 H.R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans HR 1096 IH 110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 1096 To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 15, 2007 Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. 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 `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007'. SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1993 LAW PROVIDING FOR A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF A HANDGUN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM TO BE CONTACTED BY FIREARMS DEALERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM. Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted. SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION. (a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended-- (1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'; and (2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes'. ( Section 921(a)(4)( of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes'. © Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes'. (d) Section 921(a)(17)© of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,'. (e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community'. (f) Section 922® of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'. (g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and'. (h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and ('. (i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'. (j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes'. (k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and ((3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes' and inserting `lawful purposes'. SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005. (a) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code- (1) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (z). (2) Section 924 of such title is amended-- (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `(f), or (p)' and inserting `or (f)'; and ( by striking subsection (p). ( Repealer- Section 5 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note; 119 Stat. 2099) is repealed. SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment. Nothing about this bill is listed here yet: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/ Those of you with access to the people at that organization that matter need to get them to push this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
whatmanual 44 Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Ron Paul of Texas...imagine that *(he's running for President I might add). Go Ron GO. ~S Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DaGroaner 2 Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Ron Paul of Texas...imagine that *(he's running for President I might add). Go Ron GO. ~S It's my understanding(from a different thread on a different board) that he introduces legislation like this every session and it never goes anywhere. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deamon 0 Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 One can dream i suppose. I pray it goes through. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SinistralRifleman 0 Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Ron Paul of Texas...imagine that *(he's running for President I might add). Go Ron GO. ~S It's my understanding(from a different thread on a different board) that he introduces legislation like this every session and it never goes anywhere. Just like McCarthy and the anti-gun forces did year after year...eventually it gains momentum and goes somewhere. Just because the fight is difficult, does not mean it is not worth fighting. http://www.gunowners.org/cci.htm use this to find the congressmen in your district, contact them and ask them to support this bill. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pedal2alloy 206 Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 That whole "sporting purpose" thing has been one of the biggest crimes against constitutional rights in U.S. history. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Now is the time for all good men to get political as hell. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SinistralRifleman 0 Posted March 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Don't want your Saiga to ever be declared a destructive device? GET BEHIND THIS BILL! The big national organization still hasn't done anything with this, and information on HR1022 the new AWB is buried 4 pages deep on their site. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SinistralRifleman 0 Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) I am learning that most gun owners are essentially lazy, scared of causing too much fuss, unwilling to take initiative, or just plain defeatists. Joining an organization, is not a commutation fee that excuses you from joining the fight. If this legislation is too extreme for you, or you can't be bothered to support it, you're a fair weather second amendment supporter. ----------------------------------------- Those of you with democrats in your district tell them you are an independent voter. Tell them some of their policies make sense to you, but you are a firearms owner and your rights are extremely important to you. Let them know you will support whoever defends your rights the best. Those of you with republicans in your district, emphasize you support for the party so long as they stand with firearms owners. Let them know it is what you expect from them and why they are there. Here is my letter... Dear Congressman Flake, I am writing to ask for your support of HR1096 introduced by Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. HR1096 To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans, removes many of the egregious federal laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms for all American citizens. HR1022, the bill that would ban millions of lawfully owned firearms suitable for self-defense and recreational purposes, is gaining co-sponsors every week. I believe the best way to show that the American people do not want more gun control is by supporting good pro-rights legislation. Supporting this legislation by cosponsoring it would reinforce your longstanding record of supporting the right to keep and bear arms, and show that the Republican party is solidly with gun owners in the defense of their rights. Please support HR1096, and oppose HR1022 vigorously. Respectfully, Russell Phagan Mesa, AZ Edited March 13, 2007 by SinistralRifleman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
305diver 2 Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Called my reps and expressed my disdain for 1022 and support of 1096..... has anyone gotten any sort of petition going in favor of 1096? that we as interested parties could help spread around.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Stand up and be counted. If they aren't listening SHOUT LOUDER! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uzitiger 193 Posted March 17, 2007 Report Share Posted March 17, 2007 Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado is running for President and he's as tough as Ron Paul when it comes to our borders and he would defend our Second Amendment. Tancredo would be a lot better than RINOs like Guiliani or Mitt Romney which the press is endorsing or that turncoat John McCain because he's a true conservative. Tancredo would be a lot better than these limp wristed excuses for Republicans and would rout Hitlery Clinton. Last week I heard sound clips of Hitlery Clintor and her ranting has a chilling reminder of the way the accursed Adolph Hitler ranted. The only thing missing was Nazi background music or some Democrat yelling sieg heil. We need to mobilize voters with a strong Republican candidate to defeat her otherwise we can kiss our gun rights and other rights goodbye. Heaven help us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
polik6887 0 Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 (edited) did I read this wrong? is 1096 really trying to eliminate dealer background checks???? If so it will never pass. and it shouldnt pass. felons should not be sold guns legally, we should do everything we can to stop that from happening. criminals commit crimes, giving convicted criminals guns not only endangers honest americans, plus it gives ammo to anti-gunners. (I also realise that not all felonies are equal, and beleive some of the more minor ones shouldn't result in a loss of rights) maybe im just an idiot and read that part of the bill wrong. Edited March 18, 2007 by polik6887 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
csspecs 1,987 Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 did I read this wrong? is 1096 really trying to eliminate dealer background checks???? If so it will never pass. and it shouldnt pass. felons should not be sold guns legally, we should do everything we can to stop that from happening. criminals commit crimes, giving convicted criminals guns not only endangers honest americans, plus it gives ammo to anti-gunners. (I also realise that not all felonies are equal, and beleive some of the more minor ones shouldn't result in a loss of rights) maybe im just an idiot and read that part of the bill wrong. I agree, I like background checks. They make sense, and I sleep better at night knowing they are there. HOWEVER, I believe there should be a provision in place to get your rights back. The GCA 68 had a provision for this but it was defunded, if the funding was there then people who have changed can get their rights back. Also I think we need more baby steps before all the gun laws are removed or bad things will happen. One that should be passed is some sort of commerce law that would allow sporting ammo to be imported from China and every other country that can sell normal goods to the USA. It would have a chance to be passed and would do everyone good (including the fudds). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SinistralRifleman 0 Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 did I read this wrong? is 1096 really trying to eliminate dealer background checks???? If so it will never pass. and it shouldnt pass. felons should not be sold guns legally, we should do everything we can to stop that from happening. criminals commit crimes, giving convicted criminals guns not only endangers honest americans, plus it gives ammo to anti-gunners. (I also realise that not all felonies are equal, and beleive some of the more minor ones shouldn't result in a loss of rights) maybe im just an idiot and read that part of the bill wrong. It's been illegal for felons to possess or purchase guns since the GCA of 1968. The NICS check has nothing to do with that, other than as a verification tool, the problems with the NICS system are it is a De Facto gun owner registration (we can't be sure records are destroyed) and the system can fail and be down, and delay transfers for up to 3 days. That said, there are portions of this bill I would expect to be bargained away if it were to get anywhere. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.