I talked briefly yesterday about Senator Biden's attempt to resurrect the expired ban on "assault weapons." Information is still lacking, but there's a bit more now.
It will apparently be S. 2237 (text not yet available). According to this pdf file (on page 16), the "assault weapons" component of it will be a straight-up reprise of the '94 version:
TITLE VI—PREVENTING ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF FIREARMSBy the way, I have no idea what "No authorization" means in this context--I'm guessing that it's not a reference to the fact that the Constitution grants the federal government absolutely no authority for such legislation--purveyors of this kind of filth tend to try to keep that sort of thing quiet.
Subtitle A—Firearms Background Check Enhancement Act of 2007:
• Amends the Brady Act to require all firearm sellers at gun shows to perform their sales through a
federal firearm licensee so that all firearms purchasers must submit to federal background checks.
Also requires that the gun show organizer alert the Attorney General of the location of the gun
show at least 15 days in advance.
• No authorization.
Subtitle B—Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007:
• In September 2004, the assault weapons ban on the manufacture and sale of 19 specific militarystyle
semi-automatic assault rifles and copycats expired. This bill simply renews that ban with a
straight reauthorization in order to keep military-style assault weapons and high capacity
ammunition clips off the street.
• No authorization.
One thing that might be worth keeping an eye on is what the Violence Policy Center will have to say about a word-for-word repeat of the old ban. It was VPC senior policy analyst Tom Diaz, you'll remember, who had this to say in an interview on National Public Radio (March 11, 2004--listen here):
If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass.I dunno, Tom--maybe there has been a dramatic upsurge in bayonet crime since September, 1994.
Stumble it!
4 comments:
I wonder is this is to take our minds off of HR 1022.
1022 now has 59 co-sponsors, two adding their names this past week.
Yeah--I saw that. To tell you the truth, I'm not too worried about H.R. 1022--I just don't think anything that extreme (to borrow Mitt's term) is going to get the votes.
I really think it should be illegal to ban a specific trademarked product. If you can't articulate the exact reasons why those specific rifles should be banned, hands off then!
With all the hysterics about tobacco and second hand smoke why haven't they banned it yet? Is it because they keep jacking the taxes on it up to pay for the socialist programs?
What percentage of low income people use some form of tobacco?
Don't the democrats CARE about them?
The fact is they don't HAVE the authority to ban any of these products, just like they don't have the authority to ban "illegal" drugs under the constitution, but that won't stop them.
The feds have taken over "education" and control the agenda, they can teach Johnny that Jimmy can be his wife, that the government can do what it wants, that it's not a criminals fault, it's the evil white man who has done him wrong. You repeat the lie often enough....
Post a Comment