2015 Assault Weapons Ban Text

[Vile Shadow]

What if your friend told you to throw your AK in the trash?

I wanted to jack slap him fer doin' that to that beautiful rifle.

 

[DC-W]

NRA-ILA on HR4269

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...-and-magazine-ban-in-house-of-representatives

On December 16, Rep. David Cicilline and 123 other Democrat members of the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 4269, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, a bill virtually identical to S. 150, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in the Senate in 2013.

For the moment, the ban has little chance of passing. Feinstein’s legislation was defeated in 2013, no similar legislation was even considered in the House at that time, and Feinstein’s two attempts to push the ban this year—most recently after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino—failed as well.

However, things could change in 2016. The leading contender for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, is campaigning on the most anti-gun platform of any candidate in American presidential history. Meanwhile, though the leading candidates for the Republican Party’s nomination are far friendlier to the Second Amendment than Clinton, support has not yet galvanized behind the one who will ultimately be selected to carry the party’s banner going into Election Day.

It is important to note that H.R. 4269, like other federal “assault weapon” bills introduced over the last decade, would not “reinstate” the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004. Gun control supporters have been using the word “reinstate” to mislead the American people into thinking they are proposing to renew the ban that expired in 2004. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

The 1994 ban allowed manufacturers to produce AR-15s without flash suppressors and one or two other external attachments, and to make similar adjustments to other firearms. As a result, the number of AR-15s made and sold during the 10 years the ban was in effect was a quarter of a million greater than the number produced and sold during the preceding 10 years. Additionally, 50 million magazines capable of holding over 10 rounds were allowed to be imported while the ban was in effect. CBS 60 Minutes reported that the first year of the “ban” was “the best year for the sales of assault weapons ever.”

For these reasons, the Violence Policy Center, which in 1988 urged anti-gun activists to focus on “assault weapons” as a “new topic” to “strengthen the handgun restriction lobby,” described the 1994 ban as a “fictional ban,” “a ban in name only . . . [and a] “charade.”

The new ban proposed in H.R. 4269 is another story. It would prohibit the manufacture of most detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, numerous semi-automatic shotguns configured for defensive purposes, any semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds (except for a tubular magazine .22), any semi-automatic pistol like the HK SP-89, any semi-automatic pistol with a fixed magazine over 10 rounds, revolving cylinder shotguns, various other named and described firearms, frames and receivers of banned guns, and ammunition magazines over 10 rounds, except those for tubular .22 rimfire rifles.

Two weeks ago, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that the American people oppose an “assault weapon” ban by a 53%-45% margin. Presumably, if the American people knew the vast differences between the 1994 ban and the one currently being proposed, that margin would widen considerably.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and express your opposition to H.R. 4269. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121 or write your lawmakers here: https://www.nraila.org/take-action/write-your-lawmakers/

 

[The sphinx]

Thanks for posting that DC-W

 

[DC-W]

Thanks for posting that DC-W

 

[dist1646]

I hope the grandfathering part(s) will remain intact IF the thing is pushed through and made law. When they start using the words "possess" or "possession" it puts me on high alert.

Grandfathering in this bill means that only you can possess it. It renders your property worthless since you can never sell it, it must be turned in for destruction.

 

[Lev928]

Grandfathering in this bill means that only you can possess it. It renders your property worthless since you can never sell it, it must be turned in for destruction.

As long as I'm alive, I have no worries. They won't be taking them by any means, nor will I submit them for destruction.

I only hope that my children can benefit from them when I'm gone. If this law passes and attempts to prevents that, then ... well ... methods will be taken to ensure that my children enjoy their rights under the Constitution and related state laws prior to it being enacted.

 

[APPLESAUCED226]

As long as I'm alive, I have no worries. They won't be taking them by any means, nor will I submit them for destruction.

I only hope that my children can benefit from them when I'm gone. If this law passes and attempts to prevents that, then ... well ... methods will be taken to ensure that my children enjoy their rights under the Constitution and related state laws prior to it being enacted.

But that is the severing of our rights , even if you and I are not alive. i am not gonna sit back and let it unfold. the idea , rights and liberties of what is given by God not govt shall not be infringed. We can labor under the dilution that it will only get worse and there's nothing we can do about it.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Grandfathering in this bill means that only you can possess it. It renders your property worthless since you can never sell it, it must be turned in for destruction.

Swinestein and her co-conspirators can go EAFD...and choke on it.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Swinestein and her co-conspirators can go EAFD...and choke on it.

As long as it ain't mine...

 

[psucobra96]

"Shall not be infringed. ", feeling infringed right about now

 

[Lev928]

But that is the severing of our rights , even if you and I are not alive. i am not gonna sit back and let it unfold. the idea , rights and liberties of what is given by God not govt shall not be infringed. We can labor under the dilution that it will only get worse and there's nothing we can do about it.

Agreed.

Now I just read the news about O-bama announcing on his new executive orders on firearms. Staying tuned this coming week ...

 

[BeoBill]

Has anyone considered the possibility that this is a distractor for the Tyrant's EOs?

Time to defy them openly?

 

[chris17]

on "Grandfathering"

The whole salve of "grandfathering" infuriates me. As if depriving future generations of a right is "okey dokey" as long as I get mine. The enemy knows to play this card because it allows them to tighten the ratchet one tiny click at a time with not much of a fuss kicked up. Any action which has "grandfathering" deserves no less a response than somebody coming after you personally.

 

[Vile Shadow]

The whole salve of "grandfathering" infuriates me. As if depriving future generations of a right is "okey dokey" as long as I get mine. The enemy knows to play this card because it allows them to tighten the ratchet one tiny click at a time with not much of a fuss kicked up. Any action which has "grandfathering" deserves no less a response than somebody coming after you personally.

Exactly.

One has to keep in mind the big picture, and not fall into that trap. Otherwise we're doomed.

 

[MMartini1969]

I second this as well. These people don't expect to get this law or any of its kind passed fully. They hope to take small pieces of our liberty over the years until there is nothing left.

That is why you don't give in an inch. Not one.

The whole salve of "grandfathering" infuriates me. As if depriving future generations of a right is "okey dokey" as long as I get mine. The enemy knows to play this card because it allows them to tighten the ratchet one tiny click at a time with not much of a fuss kicked up. Any action which has "grandfathering" deserves no less a response than somebody coming after you personally.

 

[embermage]

What I want to know is, who wrote the Faa King bill? You could take all 120 some sponsors, including my traitor Van Hollen, put them in a room together and collectively they don't know enough about guns to write this bill as is. Even with Difi s help. I smell Bloomberg all over this. So has it come to a rich little tyrant can force this crap on 330 million other Americans, because he has deep enough pockets that he can purchase the Democrat Congress?
Van Hollen, Hoyer, Bloody hands Cummings, and all the rest need to be punished for this. Throw them all out of office. Make it your mission to educate EVERYONE what hosebags they are.
Yes, this is a whole lot worse than the 94 ban....
IANAL, but as I read this, YOU will if you become licensed, be able to keep your "banned" weapon. But after that, it can only be transferred to an FFL... No inheritance, no private sales, etc etc...Will that diminish the value? If you cannot sell your property, the value of that item becomes 0... Takings clause might prevent this...

I was thinking good old fashioned tar and feather and ridden out of town on a rail...

 

[BeoBill]

I was thinking good old fashioned tar and feather and ridden out of town on a rail...

Or possibly this will be the action that starts open defiance nationwide, much like in NYS, CT and WI.

 

[LeadSled1]

They do the grandfathering as part of the "keep and bear arms". They may only allow us to bear 22s, and that will satisfy a liberal court on the meaning of bear. But to take any away violates the keep portion of the clause and would make for a heck of a legal fight even in said liberal court.

 

[pcfixer]

They do the grandfathering as part of the "keep and bear arms". They may only allow us to bear 22s, and that will satisfy a liberal court on the meaning of bear. But to take any away violates the keep portion of the clause and would make for a heck of a legal fight even in said liberal court.

What does the USSC state clearly in Heller?

“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .
“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt
it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” Rawle 121–122.20

The court conceded that handguns—not “assaultweapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gunviolence in the United States.” Id., at 409. Still, the court FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK THOMAS, J., dissenting concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s senseof safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheldbased on conjecture that the public might feel safer (whilebeing no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

 

[5cary]

I second this as well. These people don't expect to get this law or any of its kind passed fully. They hope to take small pieces of our liberty over the years until there is nothing left.

The frog is starting to heat up.

This is a well laid out plan. Piecemeal laws and cultural shifts. Sadly, I fear they are winning.

I'm teaching my kids as best I can, but I'm shocked at how, even in a conservative area, many parents have latched onto the "guns are evil" mantra. I lived a lot of my young life on Long Island in NY. In the 70's, having a BB gun in your front yard was quite normal. Not anymore.