New Bill Introduced - H.R. 1859

[flydutch 2]

Today by the same lady congress critter who introduced H.R. 1022, it's numbered H.R. 1859.

 

Text of the bill is not yet available, but it's been proposed to "reinstate the prohibition of the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeder devices".

 

Probably the first of many to come, as the demoncrats milk this tragedy to their advantage.

Edited April 18, 2007 by DUTCH VanATL

[rwsackett 0]

Total kneejerk leftist move. How depressing that it may well be passed. And more will come...

[Juggernaut 11,054]

IF I may quote the Brady Campaign people,

 

"We are building a crescendo of public outcry to ensure that action is taken. We are aggressively rallying support among allies for our solutions. And we need your continued support.. to make it happen. Please make a contribution now.. to keep the momentum going. When you do, a generous donor will match your gift."

 

Truly, Truly, sick and evil of them to capitalize on this tragedy.

[rwsackett 0]

IF I may quote the Brady Campaign people,

 

"We are building a crescendo of public outcry to ensure that action is taken. We are aggressively rallying support among allies for our solutions. And we need your continued support.. to make it happen. Please make a contribution now.. to keep the momentum going. When you do, a generous donor will match your gift."

 

Truly, Truly, sick and evil of them to capitalize on this tragedy.

 

I couldn't agree more Jugg! Any fence sitters out there... Now is the time to Join the NRA, GOA, JPFO, Etc. You owe it to your bill of rights!!!

[Bearjing 0]

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

[Bearjing 0]

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

 

 

 

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.

[shaneman153a 39]

I'm sure she had that one saved on her desktop, waiting to forward it at the next shooting, what a dirtbag.

[MrTuffPaws 2]

Total kneejerk leftist move. How depressing that it may well be passed. And more will come...

 

Actually, I here she pulls this one out in the fall every year. She pulled it out now because it has more oomph behind it now. Still though, fucking opportunistic to say the least.

[MD_Willington 11]

It's her calling card, MrTuffPaws is right... The old bitch pulls this shit each year, but guess what, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and things have been "squeaky" lately...

[RangerM9 1]

From an article in the NYTimes.....

 

"In Congress, perhaps the strongest response to the Virginia shootings came from Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat whose husband was killed and son was seriously wounded by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road more than a decade ago. Ms. McCarthy pushed House leaders on Tuesday to move quickly on a bill, stalled in previous Congresses that would improve databases used to conduct criminal background checks on gun purchaser."

 

Hell....if that were all it did, i would even vote for it!....but i'm betting that is not all the bill does.......of course the article says nothing about the other provisions of the bill.

 

ya know if they separated things out, like funding for databases for background checks (like fast enough ones so that you could buy and take your gun home that day) they might actually get some good things done....but tacking that on to a bill banning hi-cap mags.....sucks....

[rwsackett 0]

Total kneejerk leftist move. How depressing that it may well be passed. And more will come...

 

Actually, I here she pulls this one out in the fall every year. She pulled it out now because it has more oomph behind it now. Still though, fucking opportunistic to say the least.

 

 

Yes, you are totally right. I know they try to pass new anti-gun legislation every year. It's just super obnoxious that some anti-gunners almost drool when a shooting tragedy occurs. It's the excuse that they're waiting for. My reference to the kneejerk action is: mass shooting occurs= how quick can I introduce legislation.

[MD_Willington 11]

The old bitch needs to keep her seat, this is how she does it.

 

These people should have a term limit, then feel the door hit them in the ass...

[Bearjing 0]

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"?

[BlenderWizard 12]

I dunno if it will make any difference, but hopefully, maybe, I can get someone on "the other side" to think. I sent this to bradycampaign.org:

 

You do realize that if gun (ANY guns) are banned, the only people who will have them are the criminals, right? See, criminals have this thing called the "black market" where they can, and do, buy pretty much anything they want.

 

Banning the legal possession of firearms is absurd. The last time I checked, criminals are criminals because they do not follow the law. Putting more laws on the books only punishes those who chose to follow them.

 

I am a construction superintendent. I build houses for a living. During the construction of these houses, we have framing that gets started almost immediately after a house starts. My framers use nail guns. If I called my framers to frame a house, but they had no nail guns, do you know what they would do? They would all pick up hammers and start framing the house the old fashioned way. Even without the nail guns, they would do the job they came to do.

 

My point is this: People have ALWAYS killed other people. As unfortunate as it may be, it has always happened. People did this long before guns. Banning guns will not stop people from killing each other. Just like my framers, people will do the job they came to do, regardless of what tools are available to them.

 

Thanks for your time,

John Ellis

[Juggernaut 11,054]

Wow, good letter. you were even, well...........nice about it.

 

"You need to start a Blenderwizard recipe thread!"

[Bearjing 0]

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 CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

 

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Sections 921(a)(31) and 922(w), and the last sentence of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

 

( Reinstatement of Provision Partially Repealed- Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph ( and inserting the following:

 

`( knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), ®, or (w) of section 922;'.

 

SEC. 3. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

 

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

 

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (z) the following:

 

`(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

 

(2) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a)(30) and Appendix A of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

 

(3) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

 

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

 

( Certification Requirement-

 

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

 

(A) in paragraph (3)--

 

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (; and

 

(ii) by striking subparagraph © and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph ©; and

 

( by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

 

`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

 

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(3) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

 

`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.

[Bearjing 0]

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 grandfathers in existing magazines.

 

 

(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful

 

for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition

feeding device.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer

of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully

possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this

subsection.

(3) This subsection shall not apply to -

(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the

United States or a department or agency of the United States or a

State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a

State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement

officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law

enforcement (whether on or off duty);

( the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining

an on-site physical protection system and security organization

required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or

contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site

for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of

nuclear materials;

© the possession, by an individual who is retired from

service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise

prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity

ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the

agency upon such retirement; or

(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large

capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or

licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation

authorized by the Attorney General.

[Koliadko 207]

From an article in the NYTimes.....

 

"In Congress, perhaps the strongest response to the Virginia shootings came from Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat whose husband was killed and son was seriously wounded by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road more than a decade ago. Ms. McCarthy pushed House leaders on Tuesday to move quickly on a bill, stalled in previous Congresses that would improve databases used to conduct criminal background checks on gun purchaser."

 

Hell....if that were all it did, i would even vote for it!....but i'm betting that is not all the bill does.......of course the article says nothing about the other provisions of the bill.

 

ya know if they separated things out, like funding for databases for background checks (like fast enough ones so that you could buy and take your gun home that day) they might actually get some good things done....but tacking that on to a bill banning hi-cap mags.....sucks....

 

 

I'm sorry about the loss of her husband (McCarthy), but there is the case with that woman in Texas, dammit, I can't remember her name or title, whose parents were gunned down in front of her and she's 100% behind gun ownership. Mcarthy will live her life in fear because she thinks a gun killed her husband and this other woman lives knowing an asshole killed her parents, not an inanimate object.

[Bearjing 0]

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 was October 1991 when an unemployed merchant seaman drove his pickup truck into a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Tex., leaped out and opened fire. He killed 23 people and wounded more than 20.

 

Hupp and her parents were having lunch in the restaurant when the shooting started. Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her .38-caliber Smith & Wesson, but she had left it in the car. Her father tried to rush the gunman and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window, thinking her

mother was behind her.

 

But Hupp's mother had crawled alongside her dying husband of 47 years to cushion his head in her lap. Police later told Hupp they saw her mother look up at the gunman standing over her, then bow down before he shot her in the head.

 

"I'd like people to think about what happened to me, and try to place themselves in that situation," Hupp said yesterday between a string of interviews in which she relived the tragedy as Exhibit A in her argument against restrictive gun laws. "Now, instead of thinking of their parents, have it be their children.

 

"Even if you choose not to have a gun, as the bad guy who ignored all the laws is getting close to you and as he levels that firearm at one of your children, don't you hope the person next to you has chosen to carry a gun and knows how to use it?"

 

The story is powerful, and not only because the question assaults the brain and invites no easy answers. With its implied alternative of an armed Hupp gunning down the bad guy before he gets too far, the story invokes the American legend of the frontier lawman who acts alone to thwart evil.

 

Unable to don that mantle when it could have saved her parents, Hupp, now 40, has been trying ever since to rally people against gun control.

 

When Texas debated the issue of concealed weapons in 1995, she strolled around the table at a committee hearing molding her fingers into a gun that she aimed at state senators. The next year, she ran as a Republican and won election as a state representative, an office she still holds.

 

She has promoted other issues, such as water rights. But her personal story trumps all other issues. For years, the National Rifle Association paid her expenses as she traveled the country testifying in favor of gun rights. Her story always commands attention. Before the massacre at Luby's cafeteria, nothing in Hupp's background suggested that she would become so closely associated with gun rights.

 

She was raised in central Texas, the middle of three children. Her father, Al, owned a heavy equipment store. Her mother, Ursula, was a homemaker.

 

Al Gratia was a man so gentle he didn't hunt and even quit fishing because he didn't want to hurt the fish. But he owned a BB gun, and taught his children how to shoot and practice gun safety. After Hupp's brother shot and killed a dove, however, no one in the family ever used the gun again.

 

As a child, Hupp was a victim of careless gun use. When she was 11, she was fishing with her brother and some friends when one of the youths handed a pellet gun to another youth and it went off. Hupp has a two-inch-long scar near her right elbow where the pellet entered her skin and had to be dug out.

 

After getting a degree as a chiropractor in 1985, she moved to Houston. An assistant district attorney who was a patient suggested she carry a gun as self-defense in the big city.

 

She argued against it, partly because it was then illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Texas.

 

"Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six," she recalls her patient advising her. Another friend gave her a pistol as a gift and taught her how to shoot it.

 

She carried it in her purse. But, afraid of losing her chiropractic license if she were arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, she often kept it beneath the passenger seat of her car.

 

That's where it was, 150 feet from Hupp's grasp, the day George Hennard burst into Luby's. The what-ifs haunt her. Hennard stood barely 10 feet from her. He was up, she was down. She had clear aim. The upturned table would have steadied her hand. Though not a crack shot, she had hit smaller targets from farther distances.

 

"The point is, people like this--no, scumbags like this; I won't put them in the people category--are looking for easy targets," said Hupp. "That's why we see things occurring at schools, post offices, churches and cafeterias in states that don't allow concealed carrying."

 

Nothing sways her. After the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, Hupp seemed to suggest that teachers should carry concealed weapons. She insists that what she said was something different:

 

"I wanted to know why the state treats teachers like second-class citizens, when plumbers and doctors are allowed to protect themselves on the job," she said. "I would be happier sending my child to a school where a teacher whom I trust is armed and well prepared."

 

She is equally oblique when talking about places where guns are banned. Even in Texas, which began allowing concealed weapons in 1996, guns are banned from several types of establishments, including churches, sports arenas, government offices, courts, airports and restaurants serving alcohol. Hupp refuses to say outright that she believes people should be allowed to carry guns to church. She picks her words carefully.

 

"We have created a shopping list for madmen," she said. "If guns are the problem, why don't we see things occurring at skeet and trap shoots, at gun shows, at NRA conventions? We only see it where guns aren't allowed. The sign of a gun with a slash through it is like a neon sign for gunmen, 'We're unarmed. Come kill us.' "

 

To Hupp, the right to bear arms is a family issue. Her two sons will grow up learning to defend themselves with a gun. The elder son, 4, has been taught gun safety and has fired his first shot.

 

"A gun can be used to kill a family, or defend a family," Hupp said. "I've lived what gun laws do. My parents died because of what gun laws do. I'm the quintessential soccer mom, and I want the right to protect my family. What happened to my parents will never happen again with my kids there."

Edited April 20, 2007 by Bearjing

[Bvamp 604]

I, the legitimate, and current american citizen of my land, will not agree to be undergunned. I do not see how these gun laws will help us real AMERICANS out in any way, athough i do understand the logic of it. there is another way, that makes more sense, that is legal. this is not legal, nor does it make sense in any way. you are only protecting the guilty. the innocent is whom you should place your fear in. not the criminals.

 

I will not yeild, and I will accept the consequences of my actions. you cannot have my gun, and I will be watching my town for the enemy, however they may take form. you will not tell me that I cannot defend myself, my friend, or my neighbors, when it was WRITTEN INTO LAW that I am REQUIRED TO DO SO, when this country was founded. I am no fool, nor am I fooled so easily. YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ME, AND THUS, WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO DEFEND ME, AS IT IS MY ABSOLUTE AND DEFINATE RIGHT TO DO SO.

 

If I must, I will. its as simple as that.

 

'big brother should be glad that we are on the same side.

[G O B 3,516]

Teaser on USA today says that the NRA and Corolyn McCarthy are working together to get her law passed-the one to strengthen background checks.

Misguided BS is why the NRA gets no funding from me. I pay membership dues only. My donations go to the 2nd Ammendment Foundation, and Maryland Shall Issue.

The NRA should go back to the necessary work of helping local ranges to stay in buisness, and help NEW ranges to start up EVERYWHERE. The dissapearance of local ranges is the biggest

threat to our way of life. The more people who have never shot a firearm, the more people who will have no idea why anyone else would want one. All the anti-gunners need to do is

close down all the ranges, and in 20 years they can pass any BS gungrab law they want.