Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Chafee, Boxer, Durbin Introduce Legislation to Reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban

- Bill would also close loophole in 1994 law that has allowed millions of large capacity ammunition clips to be imported into this country -
May 8, 2003

Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) today introduced legislation that would reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban and close a loophole in the law that has allowed millions of large-capacity ammunition clips to be imported into this country. The 1994 assault weapons ban was authored in the Senate by Senator Feinstein and authored in the House by Senator Schumer.

If Congress does not take action, the ban will expire on September 13, 2004, and manufacturers would once again be able to make the assault weapons that have been banned for almost 10 years.

"Military-style assault weapons simply have no place on America's streets," Senator Feinstein said. If Congress fails to act, the current ban will expire next year. This would be a terrible mistake. This is why Congress must reauthorize the ban and close the high-capacity clip importation loophole - so that we can help keep America's streets safe from the violence produced by assault weapons."

"The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate use for these weapons," Senator Schumer said. "That was as true in 1994 as it is today. But in a post-9/11 world, the assault weapons ban carries even greater urgency. With terrorists on American soil looking for ways to attack us at home, giving them carte blanche to pick up a Tec-9 with a high capacity clip is just plain stupid. It makes no sense. Sometimes the most basic and sensible laws are the most effective measures against terrorism that we have. I'd have to say this legislation fits that category."

The legislation would reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban by striking the sunset date from the original law. This would:

Maintain the ban on the manufacture and importation of 19 types of common military style assault weapons - for all time.
Maintain the ban on an additional group of assault weapons that have been banned by characteristic for 8 years.
Continue to protect some 670 hunting and other recreational rifles for use by law-abiding citizens; and
Preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi-automatic assault weapons -- helping to prevent instances when law enforcement agents are outgunned by perpetrators.

"To the gun advocates who say assault weapons are not used for crimes, I say: Open your eyes, read the newspapers, see the heartbreak on TV every night across America," Senator Durbin said. "Just last week, in the town of Maywood, Illinois, a thug armed with an AK-47 rifle shot seven people, including a three-year-old boy. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident, and we will only see more of these tragic headlines if we allow the current ban on these deadly weapons to expire next year."

The goal of the original bill was to drive down the supply of these weapons and make them more difficult to obtain. In the years following the enactment of the ban, crimes using assault weapons were reduced dramatically.

According to the most recent statistics made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms:

In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes;
By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and
By November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent.

In addition, the legislation introduced today would close a loophole in the 1994 law, which prohibits the domestic manufacture of high-capacity ammunition magazines, but allows foreign companies to continue sending them to this country by the millions.

A measure that would have closed this loophole passed the House and Senate in 1999 by wide margins, but was bottled up in the 1999 Juvenile Justice conference report due to an unrelated provision. Since 1994, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has approved the importation of almost 50 million high capacity ammunition magazines from some 50 countries.

President Bush has consistently indicated his support for the assault weapons ban, and just a few weeks ago, his spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated his support for reauthorizing the ban when he said: "The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law." Additionally, the President has also indicated his support for banning the importation of high capacity ammunition clips.

"Assault weapons are the weapons of choice for criminals and those who are seeking to do the maximum damage possible in the shortest amount of time," Senator Feinstein said. "That's what makes them so dangerous - because they have light triggers, you can spray fire them, you can hold them with two hands, and you don't really need to aim. They are not weapons of choice for hunters or those trying to protect themselves."

The legislation is also cosponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed, and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA).

------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/
------------------------------------------------------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
That so called loophole that they want to close also allows clip fed shotguns (my saiga), mini 14's and 30's, "preban" AK's, Browning BAR's and a slew of others to be allowed. If this bill is passed it would make it mandatory for us to turn in these guns or go to jail! Read this thing, it sucks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Man they simply cant win this one. If they do we will see a renewed and large scale attack on all our firearm 2nd admendment rights. It angers me that Bush is fainting his support. He has to know it wil cost him around 4-6 million votes.
Im so frustrated with this whole thing. I dont think many folks get the whole 2nd Admendment idea! Maybe one day when we are all being arrested by blue helmeted foreigners and have to pay an outrageous tax to simply posess, little less hunt with a single shot firearm folks will say "oh thats what they were up to." :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I've already contacted both Ohio Senators. I voted for them, so I'm damn sure going to give them my two cents worth. I have a friend who is faxing both of them today through a law office. I have contacted 2 or 3 other voters who are Pro gun, and I'm planning on heading to the local pro-gun, pro-ccw gunstore/range and posting information, and talking to the employees. I have 5 to 10 more letters to write too. I'm doing my part......If we all do that, they will not be able to ignore us...

Considering that the Senator's that have sponsored this bill have assumed that a semi-auto shotgun holds 30+ rounds and has a cyclic rate of 300-400 rpm and are full auto....... Gotta do what I can to stop this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
IceCreamSoldier said:
It angers me that Bush is fainting his support. He has to know it wil cost him around 4-6 million votes.
I agree with you guys, but do you really believe that there's another candidate out there who actually has a chance of winning that will be better than bush as far as gun control is concerned? IMO, voting for some noname candidate who doesn't have a chance of winning the election insead of Bush is as good as voting for a Democrap. IMO, a big part of the reason the first Bush lost against Clinton was people voted for Ross Perot, who didn't have a realistic chance of winning but took plenty of votes from Bush, and we all know how much Clinton loves gun control. It sucks that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils in a lot of situations, but that's the world we live in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
nick said:
It sucks that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils in a lot of situations, but that's the world we live in.
I have to disagree with you there, nick. It's not the world we live in, it's the apathy of those around us. News agencies report "record voter turnout" of 27%. There lies the problem. Only 27% of the population feels that they can do ANYTHING to change the situation. If 100% said, "We will be heard" then we wouldn't have the "Lesser of two evils."

Remember the Boston Tea Party? That's what happens when everyone cares. It's not important which side they believe in, it's just the fact that they care....

When soceity accually refuses to sit by and do nothing, then mountains will be moved. What we need to do, is get more people to realize that each one of us can/will make a difference. Those two evils tend to disappear and are replaced with two good choices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
Guardian is right. We, as voters, need to question those running for office and ask the really tough questions. Vote for who we believe will best represent each of us and then hold them accountable. Stay in contact with your local and state senators/representatives. Ask questions. State your views and make sure they understand that how they perform decides how you vote the next time around.

I never believed that the 2nd Ammendment issue was the sole reason for selecting a candidate for which to vote until my brother Lyle explained it to me, and he did so very succinctly and eloquently: "Without our 2nd Ammendment Rights, all other rights are given up and nothing else matters." That hit home with me, because without the 2nd Ammendment, we are not truly free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
I didn't mean to say that you should always vote for the candidate that you think is least bad, but it came out wrong. I guess what I meant is that with some issues, you're better off voting for the person whose opinion is closer to yours than voting against someone just to prove a point. I think the second amendment is much better off in the hands of bush than it would be in those of any democrat. I also heard someone on the radio (national show, but I can't remember who) talking about how Bush and the Senate Majority leader are in cahoots (sp?). Basically, Bush supports a liberal idea, like the assault weapons ban, in order to take more moderate voters away from the democrats. Then, the majority leader (can't remember his name :oops:) makes sure it's killed in the Senate. That way Bush gets more moderate voters, and the majority leader can go to his home state and tell everyone how he opposed this liberal bill. It sounds like a decent tactic to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I also find this situation pretty disgusting. It seems the majority of people in this country are just too damn lazy to care about their rights or are too busy talking on their cell phone with their ballcap on crooked. :wink:

Bush is pro-gun but yet supports upholding the ban. The Bush administration has been leaning more and more left as time goes on. So, if we vote for him and he is re-elected, will he really do anything to support pro-gun rights or will he be wishy-washy about it and do like he is doing now. "Assualt weapons have no legitamate use on the streets"- what an asinine statement. The looney left is so clueless. Everytime I read anti-gun blathering it makes me sick to my stomach. These people do not believe in the very basic fabric that made this country. Who is stupid enough to believe this rubbish they spew out? I'm sure a terrorist looking for a tec-9(which a terrorist wouldn't use unless he knew very little about firearms) would just run down to the local gun shop and buy one. Laughable man.
Anyway, I am getting carried away....hehe.
At present there is no alternative to Bush so that pretty much narrows it down to just him. He can support the anti-gunners and still get elected and he knows it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Well, as far as I'm concerned, the main issue is their ridiculous definition of an assault weapon. The characteristics they use to define an assault weapon have absolutely nothing to do with how effective the gun is for killing people.
a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

Folding or telescopic stock
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
Grenade launcher
...For a pistol to be considered a "SAW," among other things, it must have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, plus two of the following features:

Magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip
Threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer*
Shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned
Manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded
Semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm
There's also a definition of how a shotgun can be an assault weapon that's equally ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that the ban hasn't had a significant effect on crime because assault weapons are and were rarely used in crimes, and the people who want to use them in crimes can still get them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
I swear soon they will be listing the color black as one of the features. Soon synthetic stocks will be "assult weapon" para- fanailia(sp). :p
 
G

·
GoldenHunter said:
I swear soon they will be listing the color black as one of the features. Soon synthetic stocks will be "assult weapon" para- fanailia(sp). :p
lol I have a 9.5" bayonet from the Korean war that belonged to my grandfather, anybody know where I can find a mount for it for my 10/22? I figure since it doesn't have any of the other listed features, the bayonet mount would be ok :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
Um golden ... hate be the bearer of bad news ... BLACK is listed!!
The ATF has a list of features to look at when classifing an imported gun. All the features on the list are scored and depending on the score the gun is classified like target, sport, AW, ...
BLACK is one of the features!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,978 Posts
Bjorg said:
What does any civilian possibly need an assault weapon for?
Bjorg- Why do you need a shotgun?

I sure could get on my soapbox with this topic, but I don't have time right now. Gotta go puke after seeing those Senator's names.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,978 Posts
Great MarlandS. Just found this site. I like what I see! Me being a bird hunter and clays shooter this is right up my alley. I've been looking for a good board and I think this is it. Keith
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top