By February 27, 2007

Fight HR 1022!!

About two weeks ago New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D), introduced HR 1022, which will ban just about any semiautomatic firearm in production today. The two biggest catch-alls are firearms that has the capacity to hold more than ten rounds — which is any semi-automatic rifle or pistol — or a large number of weapons by specific make and model (the AK-47 family, for instance). Unlike the original “Assault Weapons Ban,” this version will be permanent, and it will be illegal to buy, sell, or transfer a new weapon that fits the criteria. It is my understanding of the bill that grandfathered weapons must be sold through a licensed firearm dealer, similar to California’s current setup.

I normally don’t get political on this site, and I normally try not to paint anyone’s political beliefs in such black and white terms, but bill HR 1022 is a horrible piece of legislation, and Rep. McCarthy should be ashamed of herself for introducing such an illogical piece of garbage. While “assault weapons” make the news highlight reel whenever they are used in a crime, these types of weapons are statistical minorities when firearms are used in the commission of a crime. As you’ll see from the suggested form letter below, they account for less than one percent of the guns used in crimes.

So, please, whether you own firearms or not, whether you live in a state that is “gun friendly” or not, please, please email, write, fax or call your representatives and tell them to oppose HR 1022. Here is a form letter that someone else on another forum wrote. I have modified it slightly to remove the word “draconian” from the original.

Dear Representative ——,

I am writing you in opposition to House Bill 1022, introduced on February 13, 2007 by New York Rep. McCarthy. This bill would actively seek to limit the rights of U.S. citizens by imposing restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. This bill is a reimplementation of the failed Brady Bill “Assault Weapon” ban that attacks legally owned firearms on the basis on their appearance.
This bill is framed by its supporters as a method of reducing violent crime. The facts are, however, that so-called “assault weapons” are used in less than one percent of all homicides according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Statistics.
The original Brady Bill was wisely allowed to sunset by Congress in 2004 because of the complete lack of efficacy in deterring crime. The only effect that it had was limiting the constitutionally guaranteed rights that we as American citizens have. With these facts in mind I respectfully ask you to actively oppose any attempts to move this bill forward, and oppose any other attempted infringements on our Bill of Rights.

Sincerely,

Please email, fax, and/or snail mail this letter (or something to this effect) to your local representative, and any delegate from your state on this list, as they are the initial gatekeepers of this bill.

It looks like this bill make make it out of committee, as enough of the people in committee are anti-gun, historically. Keep your fingers crossed that logic and intellect prevails.

Related posts:

No tags for this post.
Posted in: guns

3 Comments on "Fight HR 1022!!"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Bond says:

    My main issue, other than the utter disgust of this HR, is the deception of the title as well as the oxymoronic quality of the word “semi-automatic assault rifle”.

    An assault rifle is a selectable fire, detachable magazine, pistil griped rifle chambered for a medium range (1000 yards) cartridge.

    From Webster’s:
    “Assault rifles are selective fire intermediate-power rifles.”

    If you read the bill, they are basically trying to creep ban a majority of guns in general.

  2. Wade says:

    I have two concerns ( at least ) about this bill. 1) The title contains the phrase “and for other purposes”. WHAT other purposes? It’s such an open ended statement, I wonder if it refers to a 2 A.M. knock on the front door by a SWAT teams boot. 2) This bill refers to banning firearms having a “Barrel shroud” (Sec. 3, #36). Yet in the bill it says that a barrel shroud is there because it “protects the user of the firearm from heat”. Excuse me? Is Mrs McCarthy attempting to ban a safety device? Shall she next ban eye protection? Or hearing protection? It really just points to how asinine this bill is. The Brady ban did not work last time, and Mrs McCarthy knows it. This just another attempt to remove firearms out of the hands of law abiding Americans. On a different note, since the Jim Zumbo incident I have taken to calling my firearms “anti-assault” or “anti-terrorist” weapons. After all, who’s going to assault, or terrorize me, or my family, when I’m carrying a AK-47 with a 30 round clip? God Bless America

  3. Jason says:

    I know that I am replying rather late, but thought you might appreciate this.

    On the off chance that anyone who reads this article does not remember, Carolyn McCarthy entered politics after her husband and son were victims of NY’s infamous “Long Island Railroad Massacre”. Being a native born NYer myself, I remember it well, as does any other NY native around at that time.

    The reason I point this out, is to provide some contrasting perspective. Representative McCarthy has a very personal (and commendable) investment in the area of gun control. And though the bill in question may be open to critique, and her ideas may be clouded by her personal tragedy, her passion and commitment deserve acknowledgment. Overall, she has been a very positive force in government.

    I am not personally in the habit of speaking upon deaf ears, which is to say that I am of the belief that both the author and the general audience of this journal are intelligent folks capable of recognizing valid points and perspectives.

    I realize that the intent of this article was the more narrow focus of opposing a proposed bill, but that having been accomplished, did not feel my commentary would detract from that objective.

    Law making is a process. Imperfect though it may be, reason usually prevails. People take up sides and issues get picked apart until the ideas become better refined. Laws are not only made. They can be unmade when deemed necessary.

    Rest assured, gun issues have more than enough impassioned advocates on all sides to help maintain balance.

    Growing up in NYC, I was in a very anti-gun environment. When I was younger, I was of the mindset that evasion in public, and a baseball bat at home were adequate. I am not as fit or nimble as I once was, and have since encountered people for whom cannot be reasoned with and only understand violent ends.

    I have since become a CCL holder and carry some of the time.

    I am not pro-gun, or anti-gun. I am just a responsible citizen who tries to live peaceably and who listens to his conscience.

7ads6x98y