Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

S.1431 What is it?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
FatSlob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 11:43 AM
Original message
S.1431 What is it?
Edited on Wed Jul-28-04 11:56 AM by FatSlob
I understand that this bill would allow the Attorney General to ban any semi-auto gun that is ""procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency". Do we have any other info?


On edit: I just read the bill. It is truly Draconian. I am upset to see our Presidential Candidate as being a cosponsor. This bill could ban one of the most popular hunting and skeet shooting shotguns on the planet, the one I currently use. I am truly disgusted. All the Republicans will have to do is tell the hunting crowd that "John Kerry wants to ban your Remington." What the hell is he thinking?

Below is part of the bill that describes banned weapons:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Too too funny...
So somebody who has been lecturing us for months about how evil the Assault Weapons Ban is doesn't know where to find the text of it?

Amazingly fucking telling...our "pro gun democrats" seemingly know every dittomonkey talking point by heart, but actually useful information they draw a blank on....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. IMO it would violate the Constitutional separation of powers
The AG would essentially have the power to write law. That's the job of the Legislative branch, not the executive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. what it is -red meat for the kool-aid drinkers
among the anti-gun-owner crowd.

But for real fun, wait until the bolt-action Remington 700, and all its "ban-evading copycats," get put on that "military procured" list . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. In other words...
dittomonkey rubbish excites our "pro gun democrats" and they goin for a round of Kerry-bashing....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. Responding to the "edit"...oh those poor widdle guns...
It's "draconian" the way Faux Noise is "fair and balanced"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. ...and the Way John Lott/Mary Rosh is Honesl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Meanwhile, how do you like these "cries of horror"
about what a "tyrant" our presidential nominee is?

Right wing horseshit from our "pro gun democrats"...are you surprised? Me neither.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatSlob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Hey, young man.
I never saw the word "tyrant" in the thread. Once again, you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I'm 100% correct again, fat slob...
Don't know what else the word "draconian" can be referring to in your lament. Don't care either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatSlob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. As usual, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.
You never do. Thank you for advancing the gun-rights cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Gee, fat slob...I wasn't the one crying about a bill he hadn't seen...
or trying to pretend that it represents some sort of "draconian" tyranny....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. To Settle This, I Went to www.dictionary.com...
...and looked up the definitions of "draconian" and "tyrant":

* * * * *

draconian - a. Pertaining to Draco, a famous lawgiver of Athens, 621 b.c.

Draconian code, or Draconian laws, a code of laws made by Draco. Their measures were so severe that they were said to be written in letters of blood; hence, any laws of excessive rigor.

* * * * *

ty•rant

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.

2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.

3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

* * * * *

So it would stand to reason that a tyrant would enforce or advance draconian laws. Hence, FatSlob, you called John Kerry a tyrant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. And below he omits part of the actual bill...
to try and pretend his dishonest point is valid...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CO Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Standard Pro-Gun Modus Operandi......
Conceal, condense, and confuse......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Without denial, distortion and outright deception
there is no RKBA cause...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatSlob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. A possible banned shotgun.


This could be banned. Sick.
A relative of mine used one of these to win the State Skeet Championship and to be named a three time All-American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. "Boo hoo hoo! Not my poor widdle gun! Oh, boo hoo hoo!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. How do you figure the 1100 will be banned?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatSlob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Could be banned:
The 1100 has been procured by the Federal Gov't for law enforcement use. It could therefore be considered to be non-sporting and be banned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. But was it designed for military use?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatSlob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. No, and it doesn't matter.
"...a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. It specifically says designed.
According to your edit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. it's both
Edited on Wed Jul-28-04 01:24 PM by Romulus
if a firearm was designed per military contract or something, I think that would count as "specifically designed" and therefore automatically banned as the law is written.

If a firearm was "procured" (meaning purchased) because it was deemed useful for law enforcement purposes, that firearm would be presumed banned.

It's banned because it's presumed NOT to be "particularly" suitable for sporting use BECAUSE it was seen as being usefule for law enforcement; As for getting it off the banned list, the law specifically says that merely being able to use it for sporting purposes isn't good enough to get it off the banned list.

In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm
procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency
is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and
a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes
solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Funny how somebody omitted the words
Edited on Wed Jul-28-04 01:11 PM by MrBenchley
"rebuttable presumption" isn't it?

It's almost as if somebody's actually deliberately trying to distort a bill proposed by prominent Democrats...including our presidential candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
18. The bill also removes the so-called "protected list" of firearms
Edited on Wed Jul-28-04 01:11 PM by Romulus
Bill text:

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.

Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `(3)' and all that follows through the end of the first sentence and inserting the following:

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that--

`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;

`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(C) is an antique firearm.'.




$$922(v) currently reads as follows (the bill removes the part that is underlined):


(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture,

transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer

of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed

under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to -

(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the

firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such

firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993
;

(B) any firearm that -

(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide

action;

(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

(iii) is an antique firearm;



I distinctly remember recently commenting on the illusory "protection" that list had supposedly granted to non-AWB firearms. . .


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
24. Well it goes really well with that ammunition ban
they tried to pass back on Super Tuesday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
27. LOCKING
Don't post crap like this disparaging the Democratic nominee without a freaking link.

I would say that I am shocked and dismayed, but I am not; only dismayed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC