2007 Assault Gun Ban:

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by dc dalton

Whoops, didn't see the 'of 2007' ... I am talking about the 2008 version:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257

Heh - and I didn't know the new one was a different one (shame on me)

Guess it's moot anyway since it's dead (whew!)

[dc dalton]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Heh - and I didn't know the new one was a different one (shame on me)

Guess it's moot anyway since it's dead (whew!)

Yeah they are both dead BUT what puzzles the hell out of me is why the 2007 one was fully Dem backed and the 2008 one fully Republican backed. Did they think it would get any further if some Republicans wrote it?

[Brick]

Originally Posted by dc dalton

Yeah they are both dead BUT what puzzles the hell out of me is why the 2007 one was fully Dem backed and the 2008 one fully Republican backed. Did they think it would get any further if some Republicans wrote it?

After a quick look I think it runs like this:

HR 1022, Sponsored My McCarthy (D-NY), was a serious expansion of the AWB in that it reintroduced the ban on the originals but also on those firearm models that worked around the ban. It also extended it to semi-autos that were not included at all in the original ban. Also I find no grandfather clause (Did I miss it?).

HR 6257, Sponsored by Kirk (?-IL), is a straight forward reauthorization of the original (as close as I can tell) ban and includes a 10 year sunset and grandfather clause. Which I guess someone decided would be an easier sell to us gun owners.

But in all instances we know that the AWB will be reintroduced. The Dems have already promised that as part of the official party platform. So now we need to start fighting it.

So keep those cards and letters (and phone calls) going!

[stephpd]

My guess would be that the Dems won seats in 2006 and thought it was a mandate. Committee chairman had been around when the first went through and saw that they lost control for over 10 years. Not wanting to face that again they tabled it.

Moderate Republicans wanting to regain control thought that if they sponsored a bill the Dems would fall all over it. But being an election year and Heller before the SCOTUS they just left it alone.

Now with the Dems controlling the House, Senate and White House I'd bet that they think NOW will be as good a time as ever. But if they value their job they'd leave it alone and do something good for this country first. But some idiot will try it again just because that's all they know.

[glock27owner]

Quick question guys...Would we still be able to bring the "banned weapons" to the range. I already have an ak47 but will buy the ar15 as long as there will be no legal issuses for me transporting or shooting at a very small private range...any thoughts on that?

[dc dalton]

Originally Posted by glock27owner

Quick question guys...Would we still be able to bring the "banned weapons" to the range. I already have an ak47 but will buy the ar15 as long as there will be no legal issuses for me transporting or shooting at a very small private range...any thoughts on that?

All of the 'bans' so far have grand fathered in all weapons inside the country at the time of the bill signing so yes, if you already own them, you are 'good to go' ... but that is based in past bills.

[BSH]

Originally Posted by The_War_Wagon

WILL America tolerate a "Ruby Ridge," not in faraway rural Idaho, but on EVERY STREET CORNER IN AMERICA? Not for LONG, I think...

Sure they will. Because only anti-government fringe crackpots who endanger children and/or do drugs will come under government attack. The news will say so, and who would think to question a mainstream news source?

[Pvandunk]

So its dead so its a WIN?

[jcabin]

That practically covers ALL rifles... As it says in the article, when I always make sure to say when debating the AWB with people, is that the writers of this document know nothing about guns. They exclaim the danger of these types of guns yet know nothing about them, have never fired them, and dont have any stats to back up their prejudice.

The statistics are on our side as gun owners. Each and every time, everything the anti-guns create some amalgamation of figures, charts, and pie graphs, our stats -shoot them down-.

[Warpt762x39]

Originally Posted by jcabin

That practically covers ALL rifles... As it says in the article, when I always make sure to say when debating the AWB with people, is that the writers of this document know nothing about guns. They exclaim the danger of these types of guns yet know nothing about them, have never fired them, and dont have any stats to back up their prejudice.

The statistics are on our side as gun owners. Each and every time, everything the anti-guns create some amalgamation of figures, charts, and pie graphs, our stats -shoot them down-.

Ive tried shooting their figures down with people I've talked to in person. I can show them REAL facts and figures and they still spout the same tired crap until they get frustrated and stomp off like little kids. My favorite is to ask these same people why they hate Bush. Every one of them said they hate him because hes an idiot. I ask them to explain and all they come up with is that he's an idiot. So as many of the facts are on our side never forget my favorite saying "Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups"