- Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
- Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
- Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ]
- Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
- Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Here's a summary:
Bold text added by me. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that bolt, pump, lever, or slide action firearms are covered unless they have been rendered inoperable? That sort of implies that this bill pretty much bans everything. Period.Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to reinstate, for 10 years, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act's assault weapons ban to prohibit the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Specifies models and features of banned weapons.Sets forth exceptions to such ban, including: (1) firearms or devices lawfully possessed under federal law on the date of enactment of this Act; (2) certain firearms, replicas, or duplicates listed in an appendix as they were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (3) any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action and that has been rendered permanently inoperable or that is an antique firearm; (4) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; (5) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; and (6) firearms manufactured for, transferred to, or possessed by a federal, state, or local government agency or for law enforcement.Requires the serial number of any weapon or device manufactured after enactment of this Act to clearly show the date of manufacture.Directs the Attorney General to study and report to Congress on the effects of this Act on violent and drug trafficking crime.
I'm reasonably certain that this is a typo, but if engineers designed bridges the way legislators wrote laws, the US would end at the first creek west of Plymouth Rock.
Rep. Kirk's office phone is 202-225-4835. His e-mail address, along with the others, may be found here.
Warning: Democrats are notoriously uncommunicative when you contact them about something, and come down on the wrong side of the issue, so don't be surprised if you don't hear much back from these guys. Yeah, I know they all claim to be republicans, but a common feature with democrats any more is that they lie about everything, including, sometimes, their party affiliation. Feel free to encourage these jerks to at least be honest about that.
9 comments:
I'm not so sure this is a bad thing.
If they can get this through, then there is no reason for the Dems and Obama to fight for an even more egregious one, without an expiration date.
This one gives us the chance to get Obama safely out of office...even if he is Re-elected...and have basically a repeat of what happened with the 94 ban.
Also, the "report on the effectiveness of this bill" is an obvious out. It codifies into law a responsibility to demonstrate that the law has been effective. When, after ten years, it has demonstrated no impact, it can be expected to die a well deserved death.
The sponsors of this bill may not have intended it to be an end-run on what the Dems REALLY would like to accomplish, but that may end up being its practical impact.
Has anyone looked at the voting record of these five to see if this follows a RINO pattern or is out of character for them?
Am I wrong?
www.reason.com/blog/show/106471.html
For McCain, [Andrew] McKelvey's willingness to devote millions of dollars to influence lawmakers on issues such as gun control is something to be lauded rather than criticized. "I'm glad a guy with a billion dollars, or two billion dollars, wants to spend is money on an issue he feels strongly about," McCain says.
Somehow the idea that I should support being sold into slavery for 10 years as opposed to being sold for life, bugs me.
The ACU rates these fellows as follows:
Name 07 rating life rating
Kirk 40/100 56
Ros-L 60/100 75
Ferguson 44/100 69
Shays 20/100 44
Castle 20/100 53
I would have hoped that anyone claiming to be a Republican would vote with the party at least 51% of the time. Of the lot, only Ros-L qualifies, and his rating, like all the others, is slipping.
One other thing to remember is that once enacted, legislation has a way of becoming immortal. The last AWB was rather the exception to the rule, and any expiration date in this one can be erased with an amendment to some other otherwise uninteresting and unconnected piece of legislation.
As I find myself muttering, over and over: Where's Al-Quida when you really need them?
I agree with you in principle...but we in the pro-rights community seem to have conceded that an AWB is going to happen.
And I'm not saying that we should support this one...just saying that there may be a silver lining.
Although true that laws with expiration dates are rarely allowed to expire, how often do laws without expiration dates get repealed?
And point taken about their voting records, I just didn't have time to look it up for myself. Definitely a herd of RINOS there.
One other thing that I just thought of that I hadn't considered before...if this one passes, will the Republican base hold all Republicans responsible in 2010 for it? Will they do like they did this year and stay home in droves...resulting in the Democrats maintaining control for another two years (at least)?
Unintended consequences and all that.
Upon further review the call on the field is reversed. Even though this ban would be preferable to many others that could be introduced, it probably would not be in the best interest of Republicans, conservatives or gun owners to fail to fight it vigorously.
My initial thought just stems from my overall pessimistic view at the current time. Basically, I think we're screwed. The damage that is going to be done by an Obama presidency with Democrat majorities in both houses of congress is going to be profound and long lasting.
Our great-grandkids are going to be paying for this one.
The only question now is, what would be the best way to limit the damage?
Illinois RINOs.
I hate Illinois RINOs.
Machiavelli told of a situation when some distasteful and oppressive dirty work had to be done to suppress rebellion of a recently conquered people. The man sent to do it was a nasty as he needed to be, and did his job well. For this, his prince professed to be appalled at the tyranny he imposed (on the princes orders) had his tongue cut out, so he couldn't protest, and had him publicly, and messily executed.
The prince was then hailed as a hero by his new subjects.
The Dems can probably not believe their good fortune in having their political enemies propose the legislation that cost them the house and senate in 94. Of course they'll vote for it, including the amendment that deletes the expiration date, and make sure everybody knows who introduced the bill in the first place.
"That's what I would do." to quote Ahnold.
I can't believe some of you would still fall for that same old sweet song. This time let them find out the shit they're getting into or not, as we all know most won't say or do anything. But I am so getting tired of not getting kissed as I'm being f#$%ed by the bastards in dc.
Or they can do this.
After all, if they can stage terrorist acts like Oklahoma City and 9/11 to seize power, why not one that leads to a gun ban?
Post a Comment