Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take long

[Goobieman]

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take long)
House.gov ^ | 12/13/2007 | Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York

A BILL To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

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 `Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007'.

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take long)

Note that THIS time around, you only need ONE of the following:

(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

or

(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).

or
(extreme lack of reasoning skills noted in bold)

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

Further:

`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--

`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or

`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

This is utter nonsense, and is a clear indication that gun control loons dont care abut controlling crime, just people.

 

[Ikari]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Yay! Pointless legislation aimed only at restricting the already law abiding citizen to restrict the sorts of firearms they are allowed! Huzzah for bloated, over-reaching government and their Constitutional ignoring ways!

 

[danarhea]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take long)

Note that THIS time around, you only need ONE of the following:



or



or
(extreme lack of reasoning skills noted in bold)



Further:



This is utter nonsense, and is a clear indication that gun control loons dont care abut controlling crime, just people.

If those buttheads actually read the very first clause of the second amendment, they would realize that what they are proposing is unconstitutional.

 

[Goobieman]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

If those buttheads actually read the very first clause of the second amendment, they would realize that what they are proposing is unconstitutional.

a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event

:rofl

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

"Law Enforcement Protection" my ***. If anything this kind of stuff could hurt the police by opening a door for more crime to happen. Because they can't be everywhere at once, and law-abiding victims can't really defend themselves against thugs who can get superior weapons illegally. If they really want to protect the police, they should make sure they will never be out-gunned again like the north Hollywood shootout, and keep the whackos who use these weapons for crimes behind bars where they belong - instead of letting them back out on the streets after parole or good behavior.

But it's not really about protecting law enforcement anyway. The phrase is just propoganda to cover up the real motive which is pandering to the radical base. IMHO

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

After reading some of the gun related posts by Goobieman related to gun ownership I think there should be a middle ground. I mean obviously there are people who can use guns responsibly like Goobie. They shouldn't be denied this right. However I think people like Goobie should meet people like me half way and come to agreement when it comes to what sort of weapons should be allowed into the hands of citizens.

 

[rathi]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

I despise this sort of legislation. The next person to advocate any legislation containing the term "assault weapon" should be shot in the face should be shot with semiautomatic pistol gripped rifle with a bayonet mount.

This is what happens when idiots who know nothing about guns try to regulate them.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

After reading some of the gun related posts by Goobieman related to gun ownership I think there should be a middle ground. I mean obviously there are people who can use guns responsibly like Goobie. They shouldn't be denied this right. However I think people like Goobie should meet people like me half way and come to agreement when it comes to what sort of weapons should be allowed into the hands of citizens.

I think I know where you're coming from. Considering the extreme case, I'm sure almost everyone would agree that the average Joe shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It'd take just one psycho for the risk to no longer be worth the reward. But that starts the slippery slope: what other weapons should be banned too? Everything from artillery and dynamite to bb guns and fire crackers has to be considered, and everybody draws the line in a different place.

I don't draw the line at assault weapons because, in the hands of a madman, I don't believe they're any more dangerous than a hundred other everyday things that same madman could use on a crowd of people.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

I despise this sort of legislation. The next person to advocate any legislation containing the term "assault weapon" should be shot in the face should be shot with semiautomatic pistol gripped rifle with a bayonet mount.

Naw, they should be shot with a 22 so they'll survive and maybe realize that assault weapons aren't the problem, the jackass behind the trigger is!

 

[RightOfCenter]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

After reading some of the gun related posts by Goobieman related to gun ownership I think there should be a middle ground. I mean obviously there are people who can use guns responsibly like Goobie. They shouldn't be denied this right. However I think people like Goobie should meet people like me half way and come to agreement when it comes to what sort of weapons should be allowed into the hands of citizens.

I really like Giuliani's position on gun control, saying that all gun owners should have to pass a written test proving they are competent to own, handle, and use firearms.

 

[danarhea]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Naw, they should be shot with a 22 so they'll survive and maybe realize that assault weapons aren't the problem, the jackass behind the trigger is!

Are you calling me a jackass? LOL. one of the rifles I have is a Model 16, made by Arms Corporation of the Phillipinnes. It's actually a miniature version of an M-16 that shoots .22 rounds. It's a lot of fun to use. Used to take it to the Brazos turnaround near Houston, but you can't shoot there anymore, so I take it to a friend's house up in Montgomery County a lot, and sometimes to a range in Pasadena.

I don't give a sh!t about what law is passed. I have had this rifle for more than 35 years, and no way in hell am I going to give it up because a few pencil d!ck bureaucrats tell me I have to. Let them come and try to take it from me if they think they have the balls. Oh, thats right. They Don't have the balls. Seriously, I hope most cops ignore this law if it is passed, and I have the sneaking suspicion that at least some of them will. There are more pressing issues for them to deal with, you know..... like locking up real criminals who are probably carrying Uzis, which is one reason I have weapons of my own. A home invader will die if he tries breaking into whre I live.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

"Law Enforcement Protection" my ***. If anything this kind of stuff could hurt the police by opening a door for more crime to happen. Because they can't be everywhere at once, and law-abiding victims can't really defend themselves against thugs who can get superior weapons illegally. If they really want to protect the police, they should make sure they will never be out-gunned again like the north Hollywood shootout, and keep the whackos who use these weapons for crimes behind bars where they belong - instead of letting them back out on the streets after parole or good behavior.

But it's not really about protecting law enforcement anyway. The phrase is just propoganda to cover up the real motive which is pandering to the radical base. IMHO

You might want to read this story which is the real world of assault rifles. This is why the law makes sense and why people do not need to play with guns. Are you all so bored in your life that playing with guns is all you can think of to do?

Assault rifles escalate violence

By Michael LaForgia

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, January 28, 2007

DELRAY BEACH — Cheap, available assault rifles, which closely resemble the Kalashnikov AK-47s brandished by Iraqi insurgents and African rebels alike, have become the weapons of choice for gang members and other violent criminals in Palm Beach County.

Growing numbers of criminals are favoring these powerful semiautomatic weapons, which, authorities say, have greatly enhanced their capacity for indiscriminate violence. In the past six months, assault rifles have been used to maim or kill dozens, including bystanders such as a 50-year-old father of three and an 8-month-old baby.

Source: Assault rifles escalate violence

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Are you all so bored in your life that playing with guns is all you can think of to do?

Why do you assume that? Is flag burning all you can think of to do just because you support the 1st Amendment?

You might want to read this story which is the real world of assault rifles. This is why the law makes sense and why people do not need to play with guns.
Source: Assault rifles escalate violence

The last line says it all: "People there are still shooting each other, Staysa said. They're just using less-powerful guns."

I see that bans have resulted in fewer assault weapons being used in street crimes. That's compelling, I admit. And I see how assault weapons tend to victimize more innocent bystanders. So it seems the rule is, when something is used illegally and can cause innocent bystanders to be hurt or killed, that something should be banned? Then why doesn't that apply to all guns?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

The last line says it all: "People there are still shooting each other, Staysa said. They're just using less-powerful guns."

I see that bans have resulted in fewer assault weapons being used in street crimes. That's compelling, I admit. And I see how assault weapons tend to victimize more innocent bystanders. So it seems the rule is, when something is used illegally and can cause innocent bystanders to be hurt or killed, that something should be banned? Then why doesn't that apply to all guns?

I have no problem with guns or gun owners so long as they are licensed and tested the way we are to drive a car or a motorcycle. I also think you should have to pay to register your gun(s) and that the registration has a time limit and then you have to renew it.

For example just yesterday I paid NY State $131 to renew my car registration for two years. I also have to renew my driver's license every ten years. Why shouldn't guns be regulated the same way? Any legitimate gun owner shouldn't have a problem right?

How many people do you know that drive around in unregistered cars?

 

[RightOfCenter]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

I have no problem with guns or gun owners so long as they are licensed and tested the way we are to drive a car or a motorcycle. I also think you should have to pay to register your gun(s) and that the registration has a time limit and then you have to renew it.

For example just yesterday I paid NY State $131 to renew my car registration for two years. I also have to renew my driver's license every ten years. Why shouldn't guns be regulated the same way? Any legitimate gun owner shouldn't have a problem right?

How many people do you know that drive around in unregistered cars?

I honestly have no problem with this, but the gun license should also apply to "assault" weapons.

 

[C.J.]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

I have no problem with guns or gun owners so long as they are licensed and tested the way we are to drive a car or a motorcycle.

You are suggesting gun owners should show competence by taking a test such as the idiot tests that drivers take?

I also think you should have to pay to register your gun(s) and that the registration has a time limit and then you have to renew it.

Absolutely lets do this. Then we could use the proceeds to fund shooter education programs in schools. Then every 16 year old could look forward to the day he can take the family gun to school. :2razz: Absolutely, lets treat guns like cars.

For example just yesterday I paid NY State $131 to renew my car registration for two years.

There is already an 11% tax on all sporting goods including guns and ammunition, plus sales tax. Handguns are taxed at 10% plus sales tax.

Automobile registrations came in to being as revenue generators, not out of safety concerns.

I also have to renew my driver's license every ten years. Why shouldn't guns be regulated the same way? Any legitimate gun owner shouldn't have a problem right?

OK, so then I could rent a gun at the airport with my gun license and a major credit card?:2razz:

So to renew your privilege to drive, you renew a license. What price would you put on renewing an enumerated right? Free speech $100.00 per year, firearms $500.00 per year, search and seizure $50.00 per year, etc?

A drivers license allows a person to exercise a privelege, not a right. You asked "Why shouldn't guns be regulated the same way"; Think about it, it's not the car that's regulated by a drivers license.

How many people do you know that drive around in unregistered cars?

Gee, is there an Amendment saying that "A well regulated highway, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and drive auto's, shall not be infringed?

Again though, auto registration laws were conceived as revenue generators. Are you suggesting the same for an enumerated right? Are you suggesting that without the capacity to purchase a right, it does not exist, or should not exist?

Regards,

"C.J."

 

[Just Me 2]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Does anyone really believe that gun laws protect anyone other then the Criminals!. All they do is prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against criminals that DID NOT follow the law to get the gun they use to shoot the law abiding citizen. :roll:

 

[C.J.]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

So it seems the rule is, when something is used illegally and can cause innocent bystanders to be hurt or killed, that something should be banned? Then why doesn't that apply to all guns?

When the bad guys figure out that a shotgun is far superior to any "assault weapon" in urban settings there will be hell to pay, and then there will be a call for our quail guns.

Regards,

"C.J."

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

You are suggesting gun owners should show competence by taking a test such as the idiot tests that drivers take?
"C.J."

You dont believe there be a way to test wether or not a person is able to handle a gun responsibly?

 

[C.J.]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

You dont believe there be a way to test wether or not a person is able to handle a gun responsibly?

That wasn't the point raised; it was so long as they are "licensed and tested the way we are to drive a car or a motorcycle." If they are licensed and tested the way drivers are, it is a fruitless exercise at best. Look around when driving, do you see any who have no business behind the wheel?

As long as you asked though, one can be trained and tested to be competent, and one can even be trained and tested on responsibility, but this will not make the criminal more responsible, only more competent.

Regards,

"C.J."

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

That wasn't the point raised; it was so long as they are "licensed and tested the way we are to drive a car or a motorcycle." If they are licensed and tested the way drivers are, it is a fruitless exercise at best. Look around when driving, do you see any who have no business behind the wheel?

As long as you asked though, one can be trained and tested to be competent, and one can even be trained and tested on responsibility, but this will not make the criminal more responsible, only more competent.

Regards,

"C.J."

Wouldn't you agree that it would also weed out the people who could how should I put this "ruin it" for gun lovers everywhere? I think what I ment was that there should be a way of testing if a person is stable enough to handle a firearm.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

With all the illegals our Gov is letting in we surely need some kind of band on assult weapons.
I mean really why does any one need a assult weapon?
I have hunted all my life, protected my family and I didn't need a assult weapon.
I hope by now everyone understands that assult weapons are only purchased
by those that want to do harm to others. I don't see any one of my neighbors or hunting friends buying them.

 

[Ikari]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

I don't know how many people have read the second amendment, but it makes things pretty clear on the issue. Owning and carrying firearms is an innate and inalienable right. Permits alone are infringement enough, there should be no form of permit at all. Permits mean permission, permission mean privilege, privilege is not a right. Thus if something is a right, something held innately and inalienably, you don't have to ask permission to exercise it. There is no reason why I should have to ask the government's permission to have a gun, there is no reason why I should have to ask the government's permission to carry a gun. Especially since government's mere existence is one of the reasons I need guns in the first place. Tests, restrictions, unfair taxes and fees...these are infringements upon a natural right. I have the innate and inalienable right to protect life, liberty, and property. Guns are an essential tool, sadly enough, to do just that. The right to own and carry firearms must be upheld to its maximum. An armed and ready populace is a necessity for a free state.

 

[C.J.]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

Wouldn't you agree that it would also weed out the people who could how should I put this "ruin it" for gun lovers everywhere? I think what I ment was that there should be a way of testing if a person is stable enough to handle a firearm.

No, I do not agree. Several points here. 1) You cannot just take a persons rights away without cause. 2) Instability in itself is not cause, and there are degrees of instability. You "generally" cannot take a "right" away because someone believes what someone may or not do. 3) You darned sure do not give the government the authority/power to do so.

Once someone misuses a "right" then yes, weed him out, but we do this already.

Personally I could give a damned about a gun itself. I care about the rules the government must operate under. They are charged by us to protect our rights both enumerated and unenumerated, and when they either fail to do so, or attempt to subvert the rules with laws, they need to be stopped.

Regards,

"C.J."

 

[C.J.]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (That didn't take

With all the illegals our Gov is letting in we surely need some kind of band on assult weapons.

Why?

I mean really why does any one need a assult weapon?

What does need have to do with it?

I have hunted all my life, protected my family and I didn't need a assult weapon.

Again what does need have to do with it? Does everything you own or possess have a need?

I hope by now everyone understands that assult weapons are only purchased by those that want to do harm to others. I don't see any one of my neighbors or hunting friends buying them.

That's totally not true. I own several, shot competively with them (As well as others) for years, so I darned sure did not purchase them wanting to do harm to others.

Tell you what answer these.

How does a folding or telescoping stock make a weapon more deadly?

How does a threaded barrel make a weapon more deadly? Silencers are already illegal, flash suppressors or muzzle brakes are not.

How does a pistol grip make a weapon more deadly?

How does a forward grip make a weapon more deadly?

How does a barrel shroud make a weapon more deadly?

Now balance your answers with the governments responsibility to protect your rights, all of them.

Regards,

"C.J."