Anti-Gun Agenda

imported post

Ok. I got this in an email. If I am reading it correctly, it means that any govt. issued firearm will no longer be allowed for purchase to the general public? I just want to see that I am reading this correctly and, if so, get others opinions/viewpoints on it. If I AM correct, this is so unconstitutional.

~~~~

Gun Law Update
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Jan. 5, 2008

Gun-ban list proposed

Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Bradys plan to introduce shortly.

I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity, It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals.

Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has (i) a second pistol grip, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a barrel shroud or (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “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.”[size= [b]Note that Obama’s pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.[/b]
][/size]
In making this determination, the bill says, “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.”

[size=In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.][/size]

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted,
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm

imported post

Keeping in mind that virtually every firearm ever designed was originally designed for military use there goes:

Any rifle with a Mauser style action

Any 1911 clone

All SKS rifles, even though only the detachable magazine ones are currently on the list, could the rest be far behind

They left the M1A completely off the list which is probably an oversight.

Oh wait, the Remington 700 has been extensively used by the military as a sniper rifle so there goes any action based on the 700

The model 1897 Trench gun is just a pump action shotgun so there go all pump action shotguns.

Can you say "Great Britain"?

imported post

Too bad for them, I'm not giving up my black rifles. Does the bill EXACTLY say there will be confiscations? I'd really like to know.

Not to be crass, but my grandfather always said, "When they come for my rifles, they better bring 3, because I'm going to get the first 2."

If the confiscation is made law, this is the kind of feeling people all over the country will have, and we will have a major problem on our hands.

imported post

Now I am in a bigger hurry to get my AR than before.



Anyone feel like donating?

imported post

my ancesters used sticks and stones.....ban those also ?



I am so glad no .50 cal Barretts where on that list...:shock:

imported post

This is the route taken by Mexico to get around their constitution and ban firearms. It worked there. I hope we can stop it here.

imported post

I am reminded of the Revolution we had and if they wish to try to take our guns then maybe its time we the people clean some house

imported post

All this BS started befor the Heller decision affirmed the individual right under 2A. Also, as one reads USv. Miller, the basis of the complaint against Miller and his fellow moonshiner was that short shotguns were not widelyusedin the Military thereforewere not among the "arms" referred to in 2A. To offer a broad ban against guns clearly in use at one time or another in the US Military (Automatic Weapons excluded as affirmed bu SCOTUS), would be definitely up for challenge. It might even get the subject of Miller revisited. Who knows, itmight even open up ownership of Full Auto weapons (subject of course to the"reasonable regulation" that SCOTUS often referrs to in their ruling(s).



Perhaps , after this is pointed our several times to these fools they will find another dead horse to beat.

imported post

Readings things like this make me pull out my M4 and stroke it ever so gently. Yes, a little sexually even.......

imported post

I'll be getting my "grandfather clause" in about a week.

Woo-hoo! :celebrate

imported post

Lesse the date on the email is a year old. This bill is several years old and has been circulating the rumor mills of late.

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

Lesse the date on the email is a year old. This bill is several years old and has been circulating the rumor mills of late.

Click to expand...

True, but the point is that this is the bill that the Dems have floated and it is expected that this is the bill they will introduce. I believe that they introduced it once already and it got defeated but I may be wrong on that one.

imported post

It would be great if the gooberment started working to actually fight crime instead of harass it's citizens.

imported post

Tyranny: That which is legal for the Government, but not for it's people.

imported post

heresolong wrote:

sv_libertarian wrote:

Lesse the date on the email is a year old. This bill is several years old and has been circulating the rumor mills of late.

Click to expand...

True, but the point is that this is the bill that the Dems have floated and it is expected that this is the bill they will introduce. I believe that they introduced it once already and it got defeated but I may be wrong on that one.

Click to expand...

They have introduced it in virtually identical form in the last three sessions. Each session it had fewer co-sponsors. I have no doubt it will once again be introduced.



Each time it sat in committee and did not pass to the floor. It thus expires under standing rule at the close of the session, as happened to HR1022 in the 110th congress.