The new wave in D.C.

[trp97]

Save the photograph and enlarge it, read through it! It doesn't specifically mention the Mossberg 715T, but it looks like our cousin the S&W M&P15-22 is addressed!

 

[Dysfunctional]

Unfortunately the wording is "All AR types, including the following" and then list specific models. I suspect we will get nailed under the "AR types" portion. Best bet is to hope it never passes and one thing everyone can do to facilitate the failure is to contact your elected officials and let them know how you feel about this.

 

[John A.]

Sen. Fienstein has been pushing this for years although this isn't the only antibill either. There are at least 6 that I know of. Some are even worse than this one.

There are more starting on page 15 about a 1/4 way down the page.
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=5848&start=350&hilit=mccarthy

Fienstein hopes she has enough steam to get it to a vote, but I have been staying hot on my elected reps, and urge you to do the same.

And I also recommend you to read the entire bill, not just an exerpt of it because it would ban considerably more than just what they have listed.

If you haven't seen the entire bill:
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=6559&hilit=text

Thanks for posting that trp97, and thanks for the links how to reach your reps Dysfunctional. I'm glad to see so much participation

 

[trp97]

Yes, make some calls, send some emails!

Our beloved 715's may be exempt from the AR-designation. The S&W M&P15-22 is gas operated just like an M16 and all the rest, while the 715 in simplest terms just looks like one! If they ban look-a-likes on that alone, I would think they have to include all the airsoft stuff out there too!

 

[John A.]

By that logic, would not include AR`15's either because they are just "look alike's" too.

And actually, the SW22 is a blowback action and is not the same as direct impingement.

But if you read the bill, it says more than 1 feature. detachable magazine, and pistol grip would put it over the top and would classify it as an assault rifle.

Even though we both know it isn't. Better make some calls while you can.

 

[OhioArcher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushom ... weapon.svg

Everything they say or do with AW is a sham. Look at the data provided on this chart. In 1993, just as they were discussing the first AWB, homicides by knives outnumbered homicides by all other guns, including AW's. Not to mention that handguns reached almost 15,000!! But was a ban on knives considered? Nope.

By DiFi's own count, 350 people were killed and another 450 injured by AW's since the end of the ban in 2004. That comes out to roughly 19.4 dead per year. But handguns have remained in the thousands and no mention of them. So banning "scary looking guns" is more important than enforcing current laws.

Our leaders are so out of touch with reality it makes me wonder if they all have lobotomies on their first day on the job...

 

[Dysfunctional]

...and for those who would like to copy my letter to my elected officials and send it to yours, here it is (personalize to suit your taste):

I strongly urge you to oppose any firearm legislation that would infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. It is not about how many do I want, or how many do I need, or even whether or not it is a semiautomatic with a high capacity magazine. It shouldn’t matter if I have firearms for self defense, hunting, competitive sports shooting or collecting. It’s about protecting my right to make that decision and the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. The constitution starts with “We the People,” not we the government. The government belongs to us, we do not belong to the government. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. The government is our servant. We do not serve government. We are Americans. We are not all wards or property of the state, despite Barack Obama’s best efforts.

Yes, there have been horrific crimes committed with the use of firearms. Laws that are already on the books were violated through senseless criminal acts. We have heard a great outcry from people who choose not to exercise their right to bear arms. They do not adequately recognize that simply having access to a firearm does not cause murderous intent or criminal nature. Significantly absent from all this are the voices of the many Americans who protect themselves and their families, who prevent crime every day with a firearm. Whether it is the convenience store clerk from Battle Creek, Michigan, who protected himself and his customers from a robbery because he was armed with a gun, or a veteran in Athens, Georgia who uses a wheelchair that thwarted an intruder by pointing his legally owned gun at the burglar, or a single mom guarding her baby during a home invasion -- guns are used every day to make this country safer. I pray that this administration treads carefully on this issue, as I fear crime rates might go up with more gun control. Instead, we should be looking into why someone would want to commit these acts. The same as lots of drunk drivers in one area should not result in taking cars off streets, but rather train ourselves to detect patterns and stop those before they hurt others, so should be the case with firearms.

We did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when we drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing as both common law and natural law. I implore you to stand with the many Americans who oppose any further gun control. The first ten amendments of the US Constitution were not an after thought to make the Constitution better, but became a line in the sand in the eyes of those who feared that government did not have sufficient limits placed on it in the newly developed Constitution. The events that led to their inclusion were driven by Virginia delegate George Mason. Simply put, without the ratification of the Bill of Rights, there would be no ratification of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson argued that "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

As my elected representative who has sworn an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States, uphold the spirit of the Second Amendment and defeat any legislation that would infringe on our liberties - especially in respect to any legislation aimed at creating a ban or limitations to firearm ownership.


Sincerely,

 

[John A.]

Thank you for that letter. That was very well written indeed.

Certainly worthy of + rep.