New AWB introduced

[Pector55]

FYI, this was a nice template from over at AR15.com

Dear Senator/Congressman XXXXX,

This letter is in reference to any legislation currently being introduced in the House/Senate that would further infringe on every American's constitutionally protected right to keep & bear arms. I demand that you OPPOSE any & all measures aimed at stripping away our freedoms in the name of "gun control."

I have decided that I am now a one-issue voter. I do this because I’m a law-abiding citizen who is sick and tired of having his rights stripped away by people that are ignorant on the subject. Those that take the time to study the issue of "gun control" know that when you restrict the right to self-defense from lawful citizens, crime actually increases in those areas. This is because by definition, criminals do not obey the law (if they did, they would not be criminals.) I do not believe that restrictive "gun control" measures have ever saved a life.

I want to be perfectly clear here... elected officials and political candidates who support ANY form of restrictive gun control WILL LOSE MY VOTE and the votes of my family members. Please do your part to cast the flawed concept of "gun control" on to the ash heap of failed ideas.

Best regards,

[Pector55]

Originally Posted by Shawn.L

this one goes to the whole comittee, or at least thats what it leads me to believe.

http://judiciary.house.gov/contact.aspx

Excellent link, thank you!

[Tackdriver]

Yep. introduced by our buddy MURTHA! check out the congressional record on that one.

Murtha not only hates the military, he apparently hates the constitution also.

[Konsukah_19]

Originally Posted by Tackdriver

Yep. introduced by our buddy MURTHA! check out the congressional record on that one.

Murtha not only hates the military, he apparently hates the constitution also.

Hardly any have any respect for the Constitution or rule of law these days.

I am going to agree this is something that is of great importance and urgency. BUT, if this passes, the Democrats will be standing in the un-emplyment line for their next elections. This is what lost them the House in 1994. They may or may not have learned from it, but, it is a volatile area for them none the less and they will certainly be screwing themselves over if they become too trigger happy before the 2008 elections.

[LBaker]

A hand written letter has a better chance to be read by the legislator. A typed one is ok too. These form letters and e-mails are not as effective.

[Mabuz]

Originally Posted by Pector55

Just curious but how does one prove that a firearm was purchased prior to the ban. I am guessing that the assumption by a LEO would be to seize and arrest first, then sort things out. (worse than OC situations)

I didn't have any firearms that would have fit this criteria during the previous ban. I have several now. My main concern would be my SAR2 which was a FTF transfer from a friend I work with. I don't have anything to prove when I bought it. Everything else went through my local FFL.

I'm not sure if it's so much date of purchase and more of date of manufacture. The serial # would be traced to indicated when it was made...if it was made before the ban came into effect, it's probably fine due to the grandfathering.

I know of people that bought ARs and AKs before the Slick Willie Ban came into effect, and ended up selling them during that ban. Why do you think some people are trying to get as many of these "ban style" guns and magazines now? So they can sell them during the ban for 3x more than they paid for them today.

[Pector55]

Originally Posted by Mabuz

I'm not sure if it's so much date of purchase and more of date of manufacture. The serial # would be traced to indicated when it was made...if it was made before the ban came into effect, it's probably fine due to the grandfathering.

I know of people that bought ARs and AKs before the Slick Willie Ban came into effect, and ended up selling them during that ban. Why do you think some people are trying to get as many of these "ban style" guns and magazines now? So they can sell them during the ban for 3x more than they paid for them today.

That makes sense, thank you. I really want to get two AR lowers and have them etched to give to my two children for Xmas in case the libs eventually win this battle.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Konsukah_19

Hardly any have any respect for the Constitution or rule of law these days.

I am going to agree this is something that is of great importance and urgency. BUT, if this passes, the Democrats will be standing in the un-emplyment line for their next elections. This is what lost them the House in 1994. They may or may not have learned from it, but, it is a volatile area for them none the less and they will certainly be screwing themselves over if they become too trigger happy before the 2008 elections.

Agreed that it might be a catalyst for better people to wind up in Congress, but the problem is that we still lose our weapons for 10 years, unless the law is repealed.

[BSH]

I hope everyone contacts their Congress critters to let them know they should oppose this bone-headed bill. I would like to offer some suggestions to keep in mind when making that contact.

First, I don't think folks in DC give much care to "rights" except in an abstract way. Some do, but generally, that doesn't seem like a winning argument in Washington. Second, we know with as much certainty as possible that this ban accomplishes absolutely NOTHING that benefits the public, or even law enforcement officers. Passion is great, but facts matter, too. Make it clear that an AWB won't fly, because it isn't supported by any rational arguments.

It's probably time for me to download another FBI report, but the one I have from a few years ago shows that more LEOs get shot with their own weapons than with all AK variants. And get this: in the entire decade from 1993 to 2002, a whopping total of 24 LEOs were killed with .223 caliber rifles (5.56 is not considered distinct). Let me repeat - slightly more than two cops per year were killed in the entire nation with EBRs. More LEOs than that were fatally shot accidentally, for cryin' out loud (also a fact from the same 2002 FBI report, 29 to be exact). Another good tidbit is that more LEO's die from being struck by vehicles than are shot with rifles. Mind you, that's ALL rifles, including bolt action, lever action, semi-auto, or auto.

Also, the 1999 NIJ study (which was so badly misrepresented by our governor recently in Philadelphia, shame on him) makes this observation, among others that clearly do NOT support a law enforcement justification for an AWB:

Given the limited use of the banned guns and magazines in
gun crimes, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect
of the ban on outcomes such as the gun murder rate is almost certainly
too small to detect statistically because the congressionally mandated
timeframe for the study effectively limited postban data collection to, at
most, 24 months (and only 1 calendar year for annual data series).

That's the whole quote, including the part that doesn't help our case. Take that bold part, and quote that to the Congress critters.

I don't think I have crime data, but if anybody else does, please post it. That's more ammunition we can use against the gun nuts. Rifles of all types are used so infrequently in crimes, it just doesn't make sense to send up a new AWB.

By all means, contact your Reps, even if they're not on the judiciary committee, and let them know this is a dumb idea. We know it's just crass posturing, giving an appearance of doing something about crime, but actually doing nothing that has any effect. Make contact, reference the bill number, and use any quotes or data that strike your fancy to help get your point across. It doesn't have to be eloquent (although good grammar and accurate spelling are preferred), but it's worth a stamp to send it.

If your congress critter has "town hall" meetings, find one, and attend it if at all possible. Raise your hand, button-hole them after the session, whatever it takes to send the message. Actually, bringing it up in town hall meetings also serves the purpose of educating the other public folks who show up. Most of them probably don't know that more cops die from being run over by cars than are shot with these rifles.

[Jackal]

My law skills are off, does this mean one could not possess an aw after this bill went into law if said rifle was owned beforehand legally?

Also, does this mean one could not sell an already existent aw to another legal person?