PA proposed Assault Weapons Ban – HB 2592 by Rep Waters 2012 effort

[WhiteFeather]

PA proposed Assault Weapons Ban – HB 2592 by Rep Waters 2012 effort

Here is Rep Waters Assault Weapons Ban sponsorship memo
read actual text here
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...11/0/10206.pdf

Co-Sponsorship Request — Assault Weapons Ban

In the near future, I plan to introduce legislation that will ban the possession, use, or manufacture of an assault weapon within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.control, sale, transfer,

Since the federal law prohibiting assault weapons lapsed in 2004, many states have considered legislation to ban assault weapons. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, seven states have enacted laws banning assault weapons to varying degrees. They include; California, Connecticut Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Other states have implemented partial bans or restrictions through law or regulation. In the wake of the tragic movie theatre massacre in
Aurora, Colorado, there have been renewed efforts among the states, including Illinois, to enact similar bans to outlaw assault weapons.

Currently, Pennsylvania does not prohibit the sale or transfer of assault weapons. Once a Pennsylvania resident is deemed eligible to purchase a firearm, that individual is permitted to obtain any firearm of their choice, including highly powerful and dangerous assault weapons. My legislation would amend Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by creating a new section, §6121.1 (Certain assault weapons prohibited), to prohibit the possession, use, control, sale, transfer, or
manufacture of an assault weapon in the Commonwealth. However, this legislation does include exemptions for members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard and law enforcement officers who are performing official duties or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty.

Sadly, gun violence continues to permeate cities and towns across America. The time to act is now. If you would like to co-sponsor this important legislation, which provides extended provisions to protect the residents of this Commonwealth from horrendous criminal acts, please contact Nilda Jenkins in my Harrisburg Office at 717-772-6955 or Nienkins@pahouse.net.

Don’t these Reps ever give up?

They are just filling these bills at the end of the session for PR purposes and to gather voters by saying gun control will work if we just ban this type of hardware.

WATERS, V. BROWN, THOMAS, PAYTON, MYERS, JOSEPHS, M. O'BRIEN, BISHOP, JAMES, PARKER, K. BOYLE, BROWNLEE, FRANKEL, MUNDY, PRESTON and WILLIAMS

It’s very late in the 2011-2012 and Realistically there is NOT enough legislative session days for passage in the remaining 2012 session of this anti-gun bill to be passed.

.

September 2012 24, and 25
October 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, and 18
November 13, 14, 19, and 20

In the 2013-2014 session, well that is another matter depending on the outcome of the Nov 2012 elections IF they got the votes for passage, then we got a big problem and a major fights in HBG.

Also Sometimes they just float this last days bills as test balloons to see IF there is enough support for passage of the concept in the next session as a strategic long term game plan for eventual passage.


Read the actual text of HB 2592 prohibiting certain assault weapons
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&BN=2592

Knowing the enemy tactics and activities, along with their allies is half of the battle


Just Posting this you know that the constant factors of rust and anti-gun politicians are a constant threat to your firearms and IF you neglect to keep them in check. Don’t ever just expect your firearm or your rights to be in the same useable condition when you need them in the future, if you don’t your part to take care of them over the years.



Here is the Reps emails address if you want to politely express your opinion about their co sponsorship of HB 2592

rwaters@pahouse.net; lwbishop@pahouse.net; kboyle@pahouse.net; vbrown@pahouse.net; mbrownlee@pahouse.net; dfrankel@pahouse.net; hjames@pahouse.net; bjosephs@pahouse.net; pmundy@pahouse.net; jmyers@pahouse.net; mobrien@pahouse.net; cparker@pahouse.net; tpayton@pahouse.net; jpreston@pahouse.net; cthomas@pahouse.net; gwilliams@pahouse.net;

Once again this is NOT going to be passed in 2012


as a side note of why maybe twisted into part of a divide and conquer effort as to why hunters need more than one shot, more than 10 rounds mags etc, so its then ok to ban these firearms as a political tool.

since these semi-auto rifle are not legal to hunt with in PA, going to be a whole bunch of short sighted hunters in PA that won’t care if they ban “so called” assault weapons, despite many, many states allowing them to hunt with them. Pa just lags so far behind many states hunting opportunities such as Sunday hunting and semi auto rifles because I got mine and fear of change of firearms action designed in the early 1900's.
That feeling can be twisted and which maybe used also be used by non hunters to lobby for the ban as a FYI to watch for when spoke of in media when this subject comes.

[Shadowline]

Will be sending personalized emails to each of the reps above. I know it won't do any good, but hopefully it send a message. Thanks for posting.

[mikelets456]

Sent email to ALL reps. Threw in some facts and figures in a nice way showing this to be BS

[daschnoz]

[fortysix]

Once a Pennsylvania resident is deemed eligible to purchase a firearm, that individual is permitted to obtain any firearm of their choice, including highly powerful and dangerous assault weapons.

Beyond the unconstitutionality of such legislation, the problem that comes is the same as with the Federal AWB, what is an assault weapon?

She mentions *highly powerful*, yet no definition is given. One could reasonably argue that my bolt action .338 Lapua Mag Remington 700 Police is much more powerful than my *assault rifle* .223 H+K SL8-6. The first can most certainly kill a person at 1000 meters, while one could catch a round from the second at that range with a catchers' mitt.

Of course an *assault weapon* is a black gun with lights and scopes and handles and magazines sticking out of it, one that would be requested by the props department of a 1980's action movie crew. But again, this is highly subjective, and subjective laws mean loopholes. Substantially dangerous weapons can skirt the laws. Under the AWB, all some manufacturers did was make semi-auto versions of the exact same gun. Didn't make the gun any less *evil* looking, didn't change the caliber, didn't change the capacity, didn't change the effective range, only the effective output (cyclic rate). As an experienced, well-trained operator, I can most certainly make as many targets dead with a semi-automatic as most anyone can with an automatic. Fire control is the difference of course. Not only can one make a semi-automatic firearm as lethal as a full auto one, one could conserve ammunition using such a firearm, providing the ability to make it MORE lethal.

Beyond the semantics of what is a *highly powerful and dangerous assault weapon*, it is our right and our sole defense against a government determined to remove our rights. One can make the pretend argument that *it's for hunting* all they like, but let's be real. I'm not going hunting with any of my semi-automatic .223's, at least not game I would be eating. I'm stockpiling these firearms to bear against an oppressive government, any enemies, foreign or domestic. This is the right ensured in our Constitution, and until there is a rewrite, I'm going to stick with that. The Constitution doesn't say we can stockpile only weapons useful for hunting, it says well-regulated militia. Any militia I've ever seen doesn't carry around shotguns and bolt-action .243's, they carry *assault weapons*. When or if it's required that I put my training to use against an oppressive government or enemies, foreign or domestic, I will be fielding my bolt-action weapons (for long range battlespace preparation), I will be fielding my *hunting weapons (shotguns), but I will be also fielding handguns, and lots of black guns with lights and optics and magazines hanging off them.

Somehow it's already illegal to organize or operate a well-regulated militia, yet it's legal to own the weapons such a militia would use. Divide and conquer, right? If we can individually operate a militia, it's better for an oppressive regime than if we can do it together, right? Let's not give up our right to own and operate these weapons. Quit playing the *hunting rifle* game, just call it what it is, your Constitutionally-protected defense against oppression and tyranny. Best of luck, I'll be sending out letters to the relevant Representatives.

[WhiteFeather]

Assault is a behavior
NOT a device

not a bunch of politicians & lawyers plus other chuckle heads (that lucky they know which end the bullets come out of firearm) to make any determination over feeling and emotions, or color of gun makes that worse on based on appearance or mechanical action over what they decide should be the law or legal to be used under the 2nd A true intent and purpose as written.

[northernlights]

My e-mail:

Pennsylvania Representatives,

I am writing to express my vehement disagreement with your support for a PA "assault weapons" ban. The very idea of such a law is un-American and I am frankly appalled that any Pennsylvanian supports such a measure. The Second Amendment is not about blasting deer or plinking at the range with a .22LR. It guarantees the American people - the militia (section 311, title 10, US code) - of self-protection. The Second Amendment IS our ability to keep ourselves safe from crime when the police are not around. The Second Amendment means, if a foreign country, or multiple foreign countries, decide to attack U.S. soil, the American people will not be helpless as they invade our cities. Most importantly, the Second Amendment means that if a corrupt dictator seizes power somehow and our government becomes a tyranny, we will not be helpless subjects to whatever whim such a person would want to impose.

The Founding Fathers made it clear that the government was NOT to have a "monopoly on force." I notice you guarantee that you guarantee that this bill exempts law enforcement, the National Guard, and the government from its restrictions. What you are saying here is that it is okay for the government to have these weapons, but not the people. I find that idea extremely distasteful. The Second Amendment is the one that guarantees that the others cannot be violated. A disarmed populace can be subjected to anything - look at any other tyranny that has ever existed.

I am hardly saying that America is a tyranny as it stands today, but by enforcing laws which prevent the American people from having viable weapons for self-protection from a well-armed military, you will ensure that if someday tyranny comes to America - whether imposed by a foreign power or our own government - there will be absolutely nothing we can do about it.

For America, Liberty, and Freedom,
-Ben F.

[das]

Very good letter. I wish I could write like that. This is getting old these ridiculous Bills. Maybe it is time to give some stats and possibly shut these people once and for all.

[c45man]

In the early 90s the fools had enough support in the pennsylvania houses to bring it up for a vote. The house and senate had their own versions. When both legislative bodies voted for an assualt weapons ban, it lost by a 2 go 1 margin. This was at a time when such weapons were not as common in ownership as they are now. This was also at a time when the democrats controlled at least one of the state houses. Of course, in the early 90s McDonald and Heller were not a matter of case law.

This type of legislation has no chance of even making out of the sub-committee much less being voted on by the entire body. This rather stupid move only makes the resolve of the pro-gun community even stronger.

[das]

In the early 90s the fools had enough support in the pennsylvania houses to bring it up for a vote. The house and senate had their own versions. When both legislative bodies voted for an assualt weapons ban, it lost by a 2 go 1 margin. This was at a time when such weapons were not as common in ownership as they are now. This was also at a time when the democrats controlled at least one of the state houses. Of course, in the early 90s McDonald and Heller were not a matter of case law.

This type of legislation has no chance of even making out of the sub-committee much less being voted on by the entire body. This rather stupid move only makes the resolve of the pro-gun community even stronger.

That doent mean we can sit back and not express our opposition. The second we stop vehemently oppose this Bills is when we start to lose.