The new ban on weapons that look like assault weapons
Free Republic has the text. Some notes:
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
This bill is particularly ugly, folks.
Update: Seems the ban on transfer provision is there to prevent people like my from going out and stocking up on evil black rifles. This happened quite extensively prior to passage of the 1994 ban. Manufacturers cranked out weapons that look like assault weapons and regular capacity magazines in droves. People bought them up and some turned a profit. I personally sold an Oly Arms AR for $1,300 after spending $700 on it two months before.
Update 2: Make sure you write or call your Congressmonkies and tell them oppose this bill.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am
I don’t quite get it, but what part of “Shall not be infringed” is lost on these people?
February 21st, 2007 at 11:20 am
Well, at least Zumbo’s timing was good….
February 21st, 2007 at 11:26 am
Aren’t all grips pistol grips? That one line will basically cover every gun ever made.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:43 am
People its time, NOW, for a second revolution/civil war.
Remember every time we go into court on an issue that is theoritcally, Constitutionally “off the table”, we lose.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:44 am
Reminds me a Kurt Vonnegut short story.
I guess the only rifles the extremists will allow have a wood stock and must weigh at least thirty pounds and have only a five shot magazine.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:46 am
Why Rugy Giuliani is not a good choice. He favors gun control
February 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The bill has no co-sponsers and is not likely to make it out of commitee.
I would wager it will die quite quickly. I’m watching it to see where it goes, but I’m not getting all worked up yet. For one thing I think it would be political suicide for the Dems since a number of their new members were elected on the basis of at least no new anti-2A legislation.
That said, it does need watching just in case. Of course, all bets are off if the dems take all in 2008.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I will be looking forward to the provision that immediately seizes all assault weapons owned by police forces and federal agencies since they are the ones who actually end up causing a significant amount of the assault rifle-related deaths of innocent people. Despite having the training on proper uses of force and handling these weapons, SWAT units have an ugly habit of breaking into the wrong house or using these weapons in ways that would be felonious for private citizens.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
[…] Carolyn McCarthy (NSAAP-NY) is going out of her way to make her proposed New & Improved Scary-Looking Rifle Ban™ as all-inclusive as possible: Instead of banning rifles with 2 evil features, it’s one evil feature. Said evil features […]
February 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
So why isn’t Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY, and the folks who hired her being Zumboed?
February 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Earl, I agree. While I initially fretted over the new Senate enacting new gun laws, a commenter made a pretty decent case that it is too pro-gun to pass even an identical “assault” weapons ban to the 1994 one, which an earlier “Republican” Senate narrowly voted to renew in ’04. Basically, we lost one good guy (Jim Talent) to one very bad non-guy (Claire “but the fake gun groups endorse me!” McCaskill), but the rest of the Senate losses were either a pro-gun Democrat replacing a pro-gun Republican, or an anti-gun Democrat replacing an anti-gun RINO. That said, vigilance is always called for.
No, Smacks, I said vigilance, not vigilantism. They’re different.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
[…] Caroline McCarthy is sponsoring a new “assault weapons ban.” […]
February 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Good News: Rep McCarthy has NEVER sponsored a bill that became legislation.
She is just a knee jerk Long Guyland liberal, (I can say that, I was BORN AND RAISED THERE) she just takes up space and wastes O2.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Don’t get your undies in a knot.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Which is a good reason not to let this one be her first. I have already written my congressman. You should, too.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Rudy was mayor of NYC. How that translates into gutting the 2nd amendment as President is beyond me. Also, it is one issue that Congress would have to agree with, and send him a bill. I don’t think a majority would ok this bill. Rudy as President will have a lot of power, but not enough to change the 2nd amendment. I think his picks for Supreme Court will be a lot better for the 2nd amendment than any judge selected by any Democratic contender. That is where his power will lie, and he will be a safer bet there.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Here we go again.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
While I wouldn’t support this law, the silver lining is that many formerly post-ban rifles were magically made pre-band by the lowering of the feature list from two to one.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
# Ken Zimms Says: She is just a knee jerk Long Guyland liberal … she just takes up space and wastes O2.
Sadly, she is way more than that. She is a woman whose husband and son were gunned down by a nut job on the LIRR – from whence came her fame and therefore electability. As such she can tap a vast reservoir of combined sympathy and hostility inside and outside of Congress, and can shame/guilt folks into voting her way (obviously with the complicity of all major media). In NY she has Chuck Schumer in her camp as Public Enemy #1 in the Senate for gun owners, and Hillary “I’d sell my soul for your primary vote” will quickly get in line. Will Jim Webb and others stick to their principles? Will the supposed ‘conservative-like’ House freshmen abandon their campaign promises? Do you really take their promises seriously, and do you think they do?
I am afraid we can’t even necessarily count on the current White House to stop this train, never mind if a Dem gets elected in ’08.
I think there is real danger here. My next several paychecks will be heavily invested in ‘stocking up’ activities, that is, if you folks have not bought everything already.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
How that translates into gutting the 2nd amendment as President is beyond me. Also, it is one issue that Congress would have to agree with, and send him a bill.
Two words.
Executive order.
“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”
–Clinton presidential aide Paul Begala, July 1998
OK. So that was more than two. Point is, there is a lot that a President Giuliani could do to gut the 2A without any assistance from Congress.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
#9;
Doesn’t that pretty much describe an M-1 Garand, or an M-1 Carbine?
Hmmm…
While I’m a staunch defender of the M-16 (I carried one with a 203 underslung in ‘Nam), I DO have a fine appreciation of the efficiency and efficacy of the Garand designs.
I just didn’t know I was going to be shopping for one next month at the gun show!
Jim
February 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Because “gun control” laws are crafted by hoplophobic idiots. I thought we already went over this. 😉
The beauty of this is that then government agencies like the BATF(e) tobacco ninjas get to “clarify” the ambiguous law. Therefore they can declare springs and strings to be “machine guns” and crappy self-loading shotguns as being “destructive devices”. They can do that without due process, by merely publishing the regulations. They do not need to get congress to vote on the new “laws”, nor does the president need to sign or veto those “laws”. Then all of our “friends” in congress with the NRA grades of A or B can point to the BATF(e) and say “it’s them, not me, I’m a strong supporter of your rights”.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I just didn’t know I was going to be shopping for one next month at the gun show!
That’s what I’m talkin’ about!
Anyone got recommendations on a good safe for long guns?
February 21st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
The part they will never understand is that the 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting. The guns are to protect us from THEM (among other things…). If you are smart, you will buy all your guns at gun shows and not fill out any paperwork so the government won’t have a trail to follow to you when it all goes down. Think it won’t happen? Look at Australia, Canada, Great Britain…
February 21st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
It appears to me that the section on “conversion kits” is aimed at banning even the most innocuous of spare parts. Read it carefully. (no doubt it also preys on the public confusion of legislatively-defined “assault weapons” with machineguns and the like)
February 21st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Well, I only scooped the freepers by two days.
BTW, Gun Law News has an analysis.
My boss told me today that it was dead in committee. I dunno where he saw that though.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:51 am
Incidentally, we have another example (as if we needed it) of gun-grabber stupidity: If you’ll notice, the bill bans Mini-14s. But not Mini-30s. It bans Hi-point 9mm carbines. But not Ruger PC-9s.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 am
The Clinton Presidency should have been evidence enough that the Left believes that what matters most is not substance, but appearance.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
It is COMPLETE ASSHOLES like McCarthy, Schumer, Lautenberg, ect.,
along with the panzy-assed liberals on both coasts that is going to trigger
a civil war that will make the first one look like a tea party!
Ralph A. LaPaugh
rlapaugh@hotmail.com
February 28th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Our Second Amendment Rights are under attack, I ask everyone to join together put down any petty differences. Our Second Amendment Rights are too important to just ignore. I am not just talking about the latest horror HR 1022, all of them. We need to stop HR 1022 but all pasted and future garbage laws on both the federal level and state. How? Other than petitions, we need to hit the financial sources as well, we have the power.
And yes, the Second says nothing about Hunting, It is the teeth of the Bill of Rights, to enforce and protect us from the ones that want to remove it.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Captain Holly Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:51 am
Incidentally, we have another example (as if we needed it) of gun-grabber stupidity: If you’ll notice, the bill bans Mini-14s. But not Mini-30s. It bans Hi-point 9mm carbines. But not Ruger PC-9s.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
McCarthy left out of her bill a specific AR15 by name, which surprises me, unless McCarthy has stock in the company, which wouldn’t surprise me. You know, I feel sorry for her having her ex-husband and son being killed by a mentally unhinger individual, but why is it that she wants to punish me for a past crime that I had nothing to do with? And the guy didn’t even use a rifle!
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 am
[…] Opposition to Carolyn McCarthy’s new and worse ban on weapons that look like assault weapons from, and I am not making this up, dailykos bloggers. Good. See summary of the bill in question here. […]