I thought I was beyond surprise at the obscene depths to which U.S. Representative Carolyn McCarthy would be willing to sink in her relentless attacks on the Constitutional rights of American citizens, but I was wrong. Unwilling to wait even a single day to exploit the heinous killings on the campus of Virginia Tech for the furtherance of her civilian disarmament agenda, she introduced a new freedom-destroying bill within hours of Cho Seung-Hui's heinous act.
H.R. 1859, "To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition," is so new that the text is not yet available for viewing by the public, but the title says enough to make it clear that this is what McCarthy thinks of as the "next best thing," to passing H.R. 1022 (H.R. 1022, thankfully, would seem to have little chance).
I wonder what "strengtheng that prohibition" refers to--limiting the capacity to nine, instead of ten? Maybe lower still? Maybe no "grandfather clause," meaning that owners of full capacity magazines would have to surrender their property, or face imprisonment or death at the hands of the BATFE?
The fact that she would introduce such a bill is, of course, not at all surprising. It's the timing that makes this especially contemptible--it's almost as if she had been waiting for just such an "opportunity." As the VPC once lamented,
. . . and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens,. . . public support for so-called "gun control" will not be enough for the rights deprivation lobby to achieve its goals. Now, McCarthy, the VPC, the Brady Bunch, and the rest have their "something truly horrible," and they don't intend to waste it.
I guess that dancing in the blood of a killer's victims is more fun when the blood is still warm.
Stumble it!
15 comments:
It will be very interesting to see what the text of this new anti-liberty, anti-American bill states. No grandfather clause is pretty much a certainty.
HR 1022 is still alive and well. 36 co sponsors (3 new this week).
HR 1022 is still alive and well. 36 co sponsors (3 new this week).
Yeah, I don't mean to imply that it's dead, but I still don't see it passing in even one chamber of Congress--as things stand now. I think the more immediate danger comes from much less sweeping bans, that are easier to pass off as "reasonable."
David just asked about a lack of standard capacity mags for Glocks....
as with all gun control laws, it will make no difference in crime, criminal behavior, or prevent tactical reloads or just dropping the mags on the ground like any maniac like this most recent turd would be expected to do.
as with all gun control laws, it will make no difference in crime, criminal behavior, or prevent tactical reloads or just dropping the mags on the ground like any maniac like this most recent turd would be expected to do.
Indeed. I think the advantage of having a normal capacity magazine is irrelevant when you're methodically gunning down unarmed victims who can't shoot back.
I wonder what his thought processes might have been had a ban been in place:
"Dang, I don't feel like going to the trouble of buying two 15 round magazines illegally. I guess I'll just use three that hold 10."
Not to mention, many of the restricted-capacity magazines which were hurriedly designed for full-size pistols, have problems with reliability.
Don't expect these people to care about that, though.
And never underestimate the creativity of the enemy. I expect such proposals as no guns for non-citizens, tracking of magazine purchases (so we can't buy more than 2 or 3 in a month, or ever), as well as the per-mag capacity limits.
Actually, the text is now available. I'm trying to decipher it now.
I'm sorry I have to comment. You say these advocates are "dancing in the blood of killer's victims" because they didn't wait to comment on the shooting but you already posted your own commentary on this subject yesterday:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/04/another-shooting-on-va-campus-and.html
Why is their commentary shocking and uncalled for, but your connection of your political view to this incident completely valid? Hypocritical much?
Hi Anon (or Mike Magnum, if you prefer).
I found Michael Daly's column offensive, because it was, well . . . offensive. He actually taunted Virginians for their horrible losses. Whatever side one stands on in the gun rights vs. "gun control" debate, that is reprehensible.
McCarthy filed her bill on the same day of the killings. In fact, the U.S. House closed for business at 2 PM Monday, so for her to file the bill so quickly, it seems almost as if she were waiting for the "opportunity" this monstrous act represents for the civilian disarmament advocates.
Remember, it was the Violence Policy Center, not me, who stated that public support for more draconian gun legislation would not materialize until "something truly horrible happens . . . "--it's not my side who waits for such things.
I still get the "The text of H.R. 1859 has not yet been received from GPO" message when I do a bill search.
Anon - the very basic difference between what 45superman and others have posted, and what the anti's have posted is that we have not been waiting with giddy anticipation for an incident such as this to occur so that we can further our political goals. Heck, the families had not all been notified before the Brady Bunch sent out emails begging for money.
These folks are Blood Dancers, they find vindication in the slaughter where we find only sadness in the knowledge that the magnitude of the carnage could have been minimized if folks had been allowed the natural right of self protection.
I still get the "The text of H.R. 1859 has not yet been received from GPO" message when I do a bill search.
Well, now, I am, too--strange. I'm not going crazy, it really did have text a few hours ago--I should have copied it.
Here's the text, JR (but perhaps they're changing it now?):
H. R. 1859
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 16, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Sections 921(a)(31) and 922(w), and the last sentence of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.
(b) Reinstatement of Provision Partially Repealed- Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), or (w) of section 922;'.
SEC. 3. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.
(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (z) the following:
`(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.
(2) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a)(30) and Appendix A of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.
(3) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.
(b) Certification Requirement-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.
(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(3) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.
I just posted the first two paragraphs to this on the board I go to and a link to this Blog so others can read it
Thanks
That is bad
http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1016#
Evidently for Ms. McCarthy her husband isn't dead enough to suit her. She wants to make sure everybody is as helpless as he was when Colin Ferguson decided to kill him.
You gotta ask, "How come?" If anybody should be acquainted with the fruits of being helpless, she should be. How much more proof does anybody need to realize that helplessness is not a security measure?
Post a Comment