Federal Gun Bills That Suck
Les alerts us to the introduction of a ban on weapons that look like assault weapons. It is H.R. 1022. It says it’s a re-authorization so I assume it mimics the old one. You can read all about how useless the old one is here.
As Les says: This is exactly why I’m only buying semi-autos between now and the end of 2008. Well, and a suppressor.
The other nasty bill (H.R. 297) should be called the We Don’t Need No Due Process of Law bill. This bill is particularly nasty:
One of the major criticisms of H.R. 297 is that, if it became law, the records of individuals who were never convicted of an offense preventing them from obtaining a firearm but had been arrested for such an offense would be included in NICS. This would make them legally unable to purchase a firearm, even if they were never convicted of the crime for which they were arrested.
In other words, H.R. 297 would make the so-called attempt to improve NICS a legal instrument of injustice. McCarthy, Dingell and their supporters may try to persuade some alleged gun rights advocates that if they accept H.R. 297, they will have nothing further to worry about regarding gun control legislation during the 110th Congress. It would be interesting to see what fools get suckered in by this line of argument. True blue Second Amendment supporters will not. They will stand on principle and hold their ground.
You got that? Your rights will be eliminated without a conviction.
Update: In comments, Xrlqy Wrlqy says:
Maybe I’m missing something, but after reading HR 297 from top to bottom, I’m frankly at a loss as to why anyone thinks it would prohibit anyone from purchasing a gun who isn’t prohibited from doing so now. NICS already contains some arrest information, but per the FBI, “Currently, under federal law, the NICS cannot preclude the transfer of a firearm based on arrest information alone unless independent state law otherwise specifies[.]” What specific section of HR 297 does Mr. Snyder believe would change that result?
I read the text and I too do not see which provision provides for that. However, Mr. Snyder has forgotten more gun laws than I’ve ever known. Will do some digging.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:47 am
The tyrant wannabes will not be satisfied until they have a fully operational police state where we are all disarmed except for the criminals and the hired guns of the “legalized version”.
Politicians (except for a precious few patriots) prefer disarmed peasants and criminals prefer uunarmed victims…the two groups that benefit from gun control.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am
At what point is the line drawn in the sand? It’s geting mighty close for me…
February 15th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Hopefully the NRA hears that loud and clear on the NICS improvements. And they wonder why we don’t go for their “reasonable restrictions”, because they want to use all these “reasonable” mechanisms they put in place to screw us as often as they can get away with.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
It wouldn’t prevent LEGAL private purchases would it?
February 15th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Maybe I’m missing something, but after reading HR 297 from top to bottom, I’m frankly at a loss as to why anyone thinks it would prohibit anyone from purchasing a gun who isn’t prohibited from doing so now. NICS already contains some arrest information, but per the FBI, “Currently, under federal law, the NICS cannot preclude the transfer of a firearm based on arrest information alone unless independent state law otherwise specifies[.]” What specific section of HR 297 does Mr. Snyder believe would change that result?
On the flip side, note that current law allows 3 days to follow up on incomplete NICS information, such as a record of a felony arrest without an accompanying record of the ultimate disposition. A better, more complete database (and I take no position on whether HR 297 would provide one) could save a lot of headaches for those who were arrested but not convicted. The only obvious losers are those who were arrested and convicted, but whose arrest records appear in the database and their convictions do not.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Damn, I hate Thomas. The above link to HR 297 won’t work; static links on that dreadful site never do. Instead, you have to go here, type “HR 297” without quotes, and then hit “search.” Lame.
February 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I am not up to speed on suppressors. Can regular people have them? Is special paper work required? Any other pros and cons to be considered? For target shooting, can they be sighted in like a regular pistol?
February 15th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
#9,
Yes. Yes. Yes. No.
that’s the short version. Here’s the long one on legalities and such.
Regarding the last question, suppressors attach to your firearm and aren’t sighted themselves. The can affect accuracy and they can be large enough to mess up your sight picture. So, try them out on a weapon first.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
GovTrack.us rocks.
Overview
Full text
GovTrack does not suck because it is not maintained by government employees.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Yes govtrack is the win.
And yes you can own suppressors. My local SOT is about to take possession of my first one from the manufacturer. The ammo for it should be arriving within the hour.
February 15th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
[…] (Via Say Uncle, who provides a handy-dandy link to H.R. 1022, though the text is not yet available) tags: [RKBA, stupid laws] You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]
February 16th, 2007 at 3:36 am
The truly scary part of HR-297 is that mental health records will be made available for the NICS.
Got a friend or relative who took the bait after Vietnam, Desert Storm or OIF and let the VA classify them with PTSD? Ask them how much they want for their firearms now so as to get at the front of the line, because that person won’t be allowed to buy or own in short order if this passes.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
The title of this post implies that there are federal gun bills that don’t suck. Is it true, Le Fou?
February 17th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Buying a suppressor? Why don’t you quit being a wiener and make one? I’m gonna do that one of these days. Gotta get with the $200 tax and all that crap first. Why are the darn things regulated anyway? It’s pretty dumb.