A New Gun Control Bill

[Shooterman]

Devious H.R. 2038
Shows Next Step

By Neal Knox

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 10) . H.R. 2038, the “Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act,” by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and 77 co-sponsors, is one of those dozens of anti-gun bills introduced every session without expectation of passage. Its intent is to pave the way for an “extension” of the current ban on ugly semi-autos by making Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill – or a similar Senate amendment to must-pass legislation – look “moderate”

But the bill, which would radically expand the law scheduled to expire September 13, 2004, also reveals the “next step” in the anti-gunners. march toward a gunless society.

H.R. 2038 only adds a couple of names to the specifically banned list, but it would ban millions more while creating a national registry of firearms. Its backers hope that registry of pseudo “assault weapons” would eventually allow their confiscation – the tactic used to confiscate legally purchased guns in California and New York City.

The co-sponsors are dyed-in-the wool anti-gunners. All are Democrats except Chris Shays (R-Ct.).

By the sponsors’ standards, H.R. 2038 is a modest bill. It does not include features that many of them have discussed, and all of them want: reducing the maximum magazine capacity of rifles and handguns to six, shotguns to three. And it does not prohibit possession of currently legal “grandfathered” guns.

However, H.R. 2038 creates the necessary predicate to confiscation – a list of legal owners All transfers of “grandfathered” guns would have to go through dealers.

It expands the list of named banned guns “or copies or duplicates thereof&rdqo; to include guns specifically exempted from the 1994 law – a list designed to lull hunters and claybirders. Those additions include the common M1 Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 and variants such as the Ranch Rifle and Mini-30.

I‘ve owned one or more .30 M1 Carbines ever since I was a teenager I wouldn‘t think of using one for deer . it‘s even less powerful than the media-hyped 7.62x39 used in the AK-47 . but it‘s a delightful jackrabbit rifle. (Speaking of power, the AK‘s 7.62x39 has less energy than the 110-year-old Winchester .30-30.)

The greatest danger in the McCarthy bill isn.t the guns that are specifically named but the broad definitions. H.R. 2038 defines a “pistol grip” as “a thumbhole stock or any other characteristic that can function as a grip” – a phrase a bad judge could declare means all self-loading long guns with even a straight or conventional stock.

The common definition of a “pistol grip” stock is one that has a curved wrist. Put that in combination with the other prohibited features and you have a technically perfect description of the handsome (and expensive) self-loading Browning rifle, which has a detachable magazine. My 90-year-old father used his Browning BAR .30-06 to kill a 10-point buck last fall. (Don‘t tell CNN but that rifle has double the power of the AK-47.)

A lot of trap and skeet shooters say they have no objection to “assault weapon” restrictions But H.R. 2038 would ban their semi-auto shotguns with fixed magazine capacity of “over five rounds” That‘s most of them because the definition doesn‘t say what length shell. Shells shorter than 2 3/4-inch target loads are commonly available. Those shorter shells are designed for home defense – specifically to increase the capacity of standard pump and self-loaders.

Another hook in H.R. 2038 defines as an “assault weapon” any self-loading shotgun or rifle “procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency.” Does that mean a particular Remington 11-87 purchased for a military shooting club? Or a Model 70 Winchester purchased for a SWAT team? Or all guns of the same make and model?

The bill declares there is a “rebuttable presumption” that such a gun “ is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes,” which means that it would have to be proved in court during a felony trial. It goes on to say that being suitable for a “sporting event” does not provide an exception.

What about the millions of eight-shot M1 Garand rifles used in Civilian Marksmanship Program shoots all over the nation? Would they, like AR-15’s used at Camp Perry, be banned from sale – or “merely” required to be transferred through dealers, even gifts from father to son.

There are many other potential trouble spots in H.R. 2038, such as the section on “transfers to juveniles”, but Mrs. McCarthy has pulled back the curtain far enough to show where the opponents of gun rights intend to go – once they again have the horsepower.

[bama47]

Constitution says I have a right to bear arms. No interpretation is needed for that except to say criminals or convicted felons cannot.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by bama47
Constitution says I have a right to bear arms. No interpretation is needed for that except to say criminals or convicted felons cannot.

Yes, of course you are right, Sir, the Constitution does, in effect say we have that right. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, though, neither grant, give, or impose a right to keep and bear arms. It is a right preceeding the Constitution, and is not dependent upon that glorious document for its existence. The Constitution merely guarantees that right.

[JD3]

Originally posted by Shooterman
Yes, of course you are right, Sir, the Constitution does, in effect say we have that right. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, though, neither grant, give, or impose a right to keep and bear arms. It is a right preceeding the Constitution, and is not dependent upon that glorious document for its existence. The Constitution merely guarantees that right.

As long as they don't take my hammer!;)

I'll never really get the concern here. It is simply a tool.:whack:

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by JD3
As long as they don't take my hammer!;)

I'll never really get the concern here. It is simply a tool.:whack:

Of course, it is simply a tool, Joe. The point being, a firearm is not inherantly evil as so many of the gun grabbing gremlins would have us to believe.

[CyNix]

I think gun control laws only do one thing: keep guns out of the hands of those who obey the law. Anyone willing to break the law can have any gun they choose. I am not saying that I should be allowed to own a howizter, but assault rifles, owned by law abidding citizens, are not a great threat to this nation.

[Simon666]

You're all twisting words and ideas, limiting the number and type of arms doesn't mean you can't have any.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by Simon666
You're all twisting words and ideas, limiting the number and type of arms doesn't mean you can't have any.

Talk about twisting words and ideas. Just what does 'shall not be infringed' mean?

[Vic]

i will never fully understand the american mind. :)

i live in Germany, i never had a more powerful gun in my hand than an airrifle.
i don´t miss guns and i don´t have to be afraid that some dumb teenager with a messed up mind might threaten me with a gun because it isn´t really that easy to get a gun here.
The only people that die by gunshots in Germany are almost only Drugdealers and Members of some italian or albanian Mafia.

almost nobody complains about having limited rights because you can´t just go buy a gun at some store.

it must be history...

[up2date]

Originally posted by CyNix
I think gun control laws only do one thing: keep guns out of the hands of those who obey the law. Anyone willing to break the law can have any gun they choose. I am not saying that I should be allowed to own a howizter, but assault rifles, owned by law abidding citizens, are not a great threat to this nation. That's why gun control laws need to be coupled with much stiffer penalties for illegal gun possesion.

[Missouri Mule]

"That's why gun control laws need to be coupled with much stiffer penalties for illegal gun possesion."

Absolutely. Illegal gun possession, especially by convicted felons, in the commission of crimes, etc., should receive the harshest penalties possible. You have a gun? Not registered? You go to the big house pronto.

[Missouri Mule]

Vic:

Your experience in Germany is interesting. There is an "urban myth" about Hitler and gun control so I did some checking. You're no doubt aware of the "Final Solution" and here is what IS true about gun control in Germany with respect to the Jews.

"after "Kristallnacht," Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons."

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html

My overall point would be that the government ought to fear its citizens as much as we citizens fear our government. Too much power in anyone's hands is not a good thing. Allowing private, law-abiding citizens to possess firearms is a great equalizer and the primary reason that I fully support our 2nd Amendment rights.

[ranger]

Does anyone know why gun violations are often the first charges dropped in a plea bargan in the U.S.?

[bama47]

Seriously, is it legal in most states to carry around a baseball bat on your shoulder?

[Missouri Mule]

"Does anyone know why gun violations are often the first charges dropped in a plea bargan in the U.S.?"

Probably because these crimes almost universally involve guns or the threat of guns. The crime itself is what puts these guys in the slammer. The public prosecutors are overwhelmed and they process these guys in and out as quickly as possible.

My solution to the crime problem would to build a lot of federal maximim penetentiaries across North Dakota and send them up there until they serve every day of their sentences. We turn these guys out on the street and they go largely right back into the crime business. It is revolving door justice.

[up2date]

Originally posted by bama47
Seriously, is it legal in most states to carry around a baseball bat on your shoulder? I presume you bring this up to establish that baseball bats can be dangerous weapons as well, and that guns are just a tool. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

The difference is guns are far more dangerous. Guns can kill from across a room, from down the street. One well hidden gunman could take out many people before he is captured/killed. One swing of a baseball bat can cause death, but it is far more likely to cause some bruises or broken bones. A gunshot wound is almost always more serious and carries a far greater chance of being fatal. A baseball bat swung by a three year old is not likely to do much, if any, damage. In fact, many three year olds probably could not lift many bats. That same three year old could fire a gun. No, the two are not equal.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Shooterman
Talk about twisting words and ideas. Just what does 'shall not be infringed' mean?
That you can't make people have no arms at all. I remain with my point, my words were twisted, limiting the type and number of arms doesn't violate the right to have any arms. You dodged that, because you can't refute it.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by Simon666
That you can't make people have no arms at all. I remain with my point, my words were twisted, limiting the type and number of arms doesn't violate the right to have any arms. You dodged that, because you can't refute it.

I answered you. You, Sir, just failed to grasp the meaning of the answer. To an infringe on the right to carry one specific arm can also lead and has lead to the infringement of other arms. Once an infringement is made, what prohibits other infringements from also being made to expand the list of banned weapons to include all weapons.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Shooterman
I answered you. You, Sir, just failed to grasp the meaning of the answer. To an infringe on the right to carry one specific arm can also lead and has lead to the infringement of other arms. Once an infringement is made, what prohibits other infringements from also being made to expand the list of banned weapons to include all weapons.
Oh the good old domino theory. :rolleyes: I'll tell you what will stop other infringements : democracy. There is no support whatsoever to ban private gunownership in the US.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by Simon666
Oh the good old domino theory. :rolleyes: I'll tell you what will stop other infringements : democracy. There is no support whatsoever to ban private gunownership in the US. \

Please tell that to the Feinstrins, Schumers, Lautenbergs, Kennedys, et al.Also please tell it to the good folks in California that have had so many weapons banned. How about DC with some of the most stringent anti gun laws in the country.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Shooterman
Please tell that to the Feinstrins, Schumers, Lautenbergs, Kennedys, et al.Also please tell it to the good folks in California that have had so many weapons banned. How about DC with some of the most stringent anti gun laws in the country.
So many != all. Are people in California defenseless? Can't they have any guns or the right to form a militia?

[up2date]

Originally posted by Shooterman
I answered you. You, Sir, just failed to grasp the meaning of the answer. To an infringe on the right to carry one specific arm can also lead and has lead to the infringement of other arms. Once an infringement is made, what prohibits other infringements from also being made to expand the list of banned weapons to include all weapons. As noted in another thread, there are infringements of our right to free speech, such as anti-hate laws, libel and slander. There is a precedent.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by up2date
As noted in another thread, there are infringements of our right to free speech, such as anti-hate laws, libel and slander. There is a precedent.

Very true! However, the penalties for the breaking of those laws are assessed AFTER THE FACT, not before. You do see the difference don't you?

[Simon666]

And why is that difference important?

[up2date]

Originally posted by Shooterman
Very true! However, the penalties for the breaking of those laws are assessed AFTER THE FACT, not before. You do see the difference don't you? Of course penalties are imposed after the law is broken. But restrictions are placed on what people can say before they say it. Feels like a silly point playing with words, and I'm not sure how it's relevant.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by up2date
Of course penalties are imposed after the law is broken. But restrictions are placed on what people can say before they say it. Feels like a silly point playing with words, and I'm not sure how it's relevant.

Let me see if I can explain it this way. You or I do not have to be licensed to post to this forum. If you or I send a letter to our local newspaper editor, we do not have to pass a background check before hand. If one of us, God forbid, are accused of a crime, we are not required to be licensed before we we can not be forced to incriminate ourselves. It is not necessary for us to have a background check made before we can attend worship services of our choice. So far one is not subject to a background check or licensing to be a Methodist, or Baptist, or Catholic. Certain prayers in our faith have not been banned. Certain typewriters have not been regulated or banned. Do you not see the difference in having weapons banned strictly on what is cosmetic, or what is concealable, or what happens to fall under the heading of 'Saturday Night Specials', to being forced to register our computers?

[up2date]

Originally posted by Shooterman
Let me see if I can explain it this way. You or I do not have to be licensed to post to this forum. If you or I send a letter to our local newspaper editor, we do not have to pass a background check before hand. If one of us, God forbid, are accused of a crime, we are not required to be licensed before we we can not be forced to incriminate ourselves. It is not necessary for us to have a background check made before we can attend worship services of our choice. So far one is not subject to a background check or licensing to be a Methodist, or Baptist, or Catholic. Certain prayers in our faith have not been banned. Certain typewriters have not been regulated or banned. Do you not see the difference in having weapons banned strictly on what is cosmetic, or what is concealable, or what happens to fall under the heading of 'Saturday Night Specials', to being forced to register our computers? I understand the point you are trying to make, but it is not an apples to apples comparison. The restrictions placed on free speech merely set a precedent. It doesn't mean we have to apply them in the same way. Generally speaking, they are applied when free speech has the potential to be harmful to others. I don't see a problem taking a similar approach to firearms.

[ranger]

Many thousands more Americans die from auto accidents than from shooting accidents. If you accept the current thought on auto accidents due to alcohol and drug impairment then you believe those accidents to be intentional.

I don't drive and I don't own an automobile. I don't like automobiles, especially those ugly military looking pickup trucks with those big bumbers, tool boxes, and racks. Most of those are automatics too and some have 4 wheel drive.

I can understand why some people might need to have a car for transportation to work but I think everyone should have one of those nice friendly looking saturns with a stick shift.

I also do not think those small cheap saturday night specials like VW and Toyota should be allowed. They are too inexpensive and add to the proliferation of deadly automoibiles on the road.

I think we need a back ground check on all people wishing to purchase a new or used automobile to insure no driver with a previous vehicle violation or domestic violance conviction can buy one. And while we are at it lets close off the auto show loophole that allows drivers to purchase cars through the local paper or a gathering of car clubs.

We should allow exceptions for antiques like the stanley steamer.

If we can illiminate all the deadly automobiles from the highway we can save 100's of 1000's of lives each year.

[NetxMan]

Wow, why don't we just require a background check in the grocery line.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by up2date
I understand the point you are trying to make, but it is not an apples to apples comparison. The restrictions placed on free speech merely set a precedent. It doesn't mean we have to apply them in the same way. Generally speaking, they are applied when free speech has the potential to be harmful to others. I don't see a problem taking a similar approach to firearms.

I suggest to you, Sir, the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is also guaranteed by the same Bill of Rights and Constitution as the other fundamental rights we enjoy as free citizens of The US. The very same. Any restriction applied to firearms can also be applied to all fundamental rights, and SHOULD BE! Justpossibly Americans may wake up then to the insidious nature of gun control laws.

[up2date]

Originally posted by Shooterman
I suggest to you, Sir, the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is also guaranteed by the same Bill of Rights and Constitution as the other fundamental rights we enjoy as free citizens of The US. The very same. Any restriction applied to firearms can also be applied to all fundamental rights, and SHOULD BE! Justpossibly Americans may wake up then to the insidious nature of gun control laws. Again, I mentioned that first amendment rights are legislated when they are potentially harmful to others, so should the right to bear arms.

I am not suggesting anything close to an outright ban. I just don't see why people have a problem with things like background checks. Several years ago I had a friend who was prescribed antidepressants. Shortly after his prescription, he tried to purchase a gun. He was turned down because of his drug history. That was a good thing. You may reply that if he could have easily found another way to kill himself, and that's true. but that doesn't mean we should give him a gun, either.

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by up2date
[B]Again, I mentioned that first amendment rights are legislated when they are potentially harmful to others, so should the right to bear arms.

I am not suggesting anything close to an outright ban. I just don't see why people have a problem with things like background checks.

Would you be in favor of a background check each and every time you attempted to post to this forum?

[up2date]

Originally posted by Shooterman
Would you be in favor of a background check each and every time you attempted to post to this forum? That is not really a fair comparison. If your words could come flying off the screen and kill me, yes. And any harm you do here with words could be easily edited or deleted. And in a way, you did have to submit to a background check. You had to fill out a form when you first signed up. Granted, it is a very shallow check, but it is there all the same. And this is a privately owned forum, so a different set of rules apply. A much more thorough background check could be set up, although I doubt anyone would actually submit themselves to it. ;)

[Shooterman]

Originally posted by up2date
That is not really a fair comparison. If your words could come flying off the screen and kill me, yes. And any harm you do here with words could be easily edited or deleted. And in a way, you did have to submit to a background check. You had to fill out a form when you first signed up. Granted, it is a very shallow check, but it is there all the same. And this is a privately owned forum, so a different set of rules apply. A much more thorough background check could be set up, although I doubt anyone would actually submit themselves to it. ;)

I believe you're playing semantics now. But okay, for the analogy about this board. I'll rephrase it. Would you be in favor of a background check before writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper? Would you be in favor of a background check before entering a crowded theater? After all, what if you screamed fire and many were hurt or killed. Dance around it any way you care to, but the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is just as important, if not more so, as the fundamental right to free speech.

[up2date]

Originally posted by Shooterman
I believe you're playing semantics now. But okay, for the analogy about this board. I'll rephrase it. Would you be in favor of a background check before writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper? Would you be in favor of a background check before entering a crowded theater? After all, what if you screamed fire and many were hurt or killed. Dance around it any way you care to, but the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is just as important, if not more so, as the fundamental right to free speech. No semantics, no dancing. I just don't view the comparisons you gave as being relevant. The newspaper editor does not have to print my letter if my words are hateful, so why should a gun shop sell me a gun for illicit purposes. Of course, there is little way for that shop to know for what purposes I want a gun, so what is so wrong with a background check?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by ranger
Many thousands more Americans die from auto accidents than from shooting accidents. If you accept the current thought on auto accidents due to alcohol and drug impairment then you believe those accidents to be intentional.

I think we need a back ground check on all people wishing to purchase a new or used automobile to insure no driver with a previous vehicle violation or domestic violance conviction can buy one. And while we are at it lets close off the auto show loophole that allows drivers to purchase cars through the local paper or a gathering of car clubs.
Equivalent to the proposed safety locks on guns, cars have been obliged by law to be equiped with safety belts and airbags. Equivalent of the proposed forbidding people with criminal record former criminals to have a gun, cars can also be forbidden to be driven by some people in my country, like those that have caused deadly accidents while drunk driving. Equivalent to the proposed forbidding certain types of weapons, in my country certain types of cars are forbidden, like those equipped with bullbars. As we don't have any wildlife here that can cross the road so these useless macho features only maim bikers or pedestrians in accidents. Equivalent to the proposed gun training people have to pass a driver's test before being allowed to drive a car. And for the rest, equivalent to the proposed registration of guns, all cars need to be registered (so you can get a valid license plate).

[ranger]

Simon, you make some good points. The major differences I see between your country and the US is:

1. - We only need to register a vehicle and license it if we drive it on a public road.

2. - We have the personal freedom to purchase any vehicle made or make our own as long as it meets certain safety standards such as working brakes. Ugly or useless macho are allowed.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by ranger
Simon, you make some good points. The major differences I see between your country and the US is:

1. - We only need to register a vehicle and license it if we drive it on a public road.

2. - We have the personal freedom to purchase any vehicle made or make our own as long as it meets certain safety standards such as working brakes. Ugly or useless macho are allowed.
1. Same here, but it's not like there are many private roads so the overwhelming majority is registered.
2. Same here, but certain accessories such as bull bars are forbidden as they have no meaning here and only hurt/maim people. In Finland and Sweden you may find a deer or a moose on the road, but not here in Belgium.