H.R. 1022 would reauthorize the assault weapons ban.
Detailed Summary
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 - Reinstates for ten years repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (the assault weapons ban).
Revises the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" to include conversion kits (for converting a firearm to such a weapon) and any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has specified characteristics, including a telescoping stock.
Prohibits the transfer of such a weapon except through a licensed dealer or a state or local law enforcement agency, subject to specified requirements. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any such weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime, and of the nature and circumstances of the crime involved; and (2) annually submit the record to Congress and make it available to the public.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device; and (2) a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer who transfers such a device that was manufactured on or before this Act's enactment from failing to certify to the Attorney General, within 60 days of the transfer date, that the device was manufactured on or before that date. Sets forth penalties for violations.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of such a weapon or device to a juvenile; and (2) the importation of such a device.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 3/19/2007: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Bryan
February 19, 2007, 10:21am (report abuse)This bill is unconstitutional and should be shot down (pun intended) right now. I consider the 1st and 2nd Amendments to be vital in protecting the others. This is a thinly veiled attack on the 2A and with the 2A the 1st and all the others will soon fall.
AndyC
February 19, 2007, 11:55am (report abuse)I don't trust any government which wants to remove my 2A rights - and for the reporters out there, it's the 2A which protects your 1A rights, like it or not.
JRod
February 19, 2007, 12:43pm (report abuse)This bill is the '94 AWB but with new definitions. A firearm now only needs ONE banned feature, not two to be banned. Pistol grips are redefined as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip" i.e. any grip. These will be banned:
All semi-auto rifle with a detachable. (Except .22 cal.)
All semi-auto shotguns.
All pistol magazines over 10 rounds. (incl. internal)
MD
February 19, 2007, 12:45pm (report abuse)If you ban firearms entirely, people will find other ways to kill each other, in Africa where the GOVERNMENT confiscated firearms, PEOPLE turned to other tools, namely the machete, the machete worked just as well in Rwanda as firearms did.
Dj from NV
February 19, 2007, 7:40pm (report abuse)Gun control is not about guns, nor crime, its about control. Control of citizens so they can be ruled.
Socialist in DC who propose this and other anti 2A laws violate their oath to the constitution. They should be removed from office, by force if necessary.
AB
February 19, 2007, 7:53pm (report abuse)I thought I still lived in America where we had rights.
Mark
February 20, 2007, 3:18am (report abuse)Apparently some in Congress think that the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment is not the same as the phrase "right of the people" in both the first and fourth amendments.
Do not let the Congress disarm the citizenry! The founding Fathers would find such a notion abhorrent.
TENNESSEE
February 20, 2007, 8:44am (report abuse)The only person who fears an armed citizenry is the crooked politician. This was Hitlers first step against the Jews. Grab their guns. Vote no to the gun grabbers.
Ted
February 20, 2007, 5:20pm (report abuse)Take real action! Write your representatives, tell them how you fell and tell how this bill goes completely against the Constitution!
Contact your Rep. here: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
RW from CT
February 20, 2007, 5:34pm (report abuse)I'm writing in response to the Assault Weapons Ban, I'm a avid firearms collector/shooter. I also belong to a Shooting Association also sponsored by the NRA (National Rifle Association).
I am really concerned about the sport I have lived with since I was 9 years old.
It's a shame that their are thugs in this country that has to ruin it for us Law Abbiding Citizens.
Russ
February 20, 2007, 5:36pm (report abuse)The 94 AWB in no way regulated the lethality of weapons. It was a rediculous, cosmetic law that prohibited "scary looking" firearms. Bringing back this obsurd law is not going to curb crime. We have bigger fish to fry in this country, I think. The democrats will probably move to legalize assault weapons for illegal immigrants only. Pull your heads from your rectums, please.
Terry
February 20, 2007, 7:25pm (report abuse)Restriction on which type of firearms law abiding citizens can own has no affect on crime! Crimes are commited by NON-law abiding citizens! Therfore HR 1022 is not only unconstitutional but would be a complete failed attempt at fixing one of our nations problems.
Jeff
February 20, 2007, 7:34pm (report abuse)This is a direct infringement of the 2nd Amendment. The 1994 AW ban has already proved that such restrictions have no effect when it comes to lowering homicide rates.
The LAST thing we need is for the Government and the Police to have all the guns.
I shall quote the Constitution:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
David
February 20, 2007, 7:36pm (report abuse)"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater … confidence than an armed man." –Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).
McEowen
February 20, 2007, 7:50pm (report abuse)Support for a so-called "assault weapons bill" is a pretty good substitute for an intelligence test (or honesty test). Military style semi-automatic firearms are no "deadlier" than any other semi-automatic firearm with a traditional appearance. The previous ban did nothing to prevent crime. In short it accomplished nothing. Neither would another similar ban. Those who support such methods are either ignorant, disingenuous, dishonest, ill-informed or merely pandering to others that share these qualities. There is no logical/rational justification for such legislation.
OIF Vet
February 20, 2007, 8:03pm (report abuse)This ban is unconstitutional, unpatriotic and overall unacceptable. The 1994 ban had zero effect on crime. The only people this ban will disarm are the law abiding citizens. Fear your government when they want to outlaw ANY legally owned firearms. It is nice to know I've served 19 years in the army to enable this countries anti-gun crowd to stomp on my 2nd Amendment BILL OF RIGHTS!
Joe H
February 20, 2007, 8:12pm (report abuse)The 94 AWB did nothing to reduce crime, and this one will not either. This Bill is about control, not about crime.
The 2nd Admendment is not about the National Guard.
John
February 21, 2007, 10:12am (report abuse)God, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand? How about we focus on the real problems our nation faces like the southern border, the budget, jobs going overseas...You know the real issues.
AZ-Mike
February 21, 2007, 10:29am (report abuse)Great comments everyone, you said pretty much everything I wanted to say except one thing. It looks like the bill as currently written has no grandfather clause, meaning we will have to surrender the firearms we already have.
I would also like to add a quote by George L. Roman: I am convinced we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control.
Another OIF Vet
February 21, 2007, 10:45am (report abuse)I served to protect America's citizens and their rights. I have to wonder why the rights of the law-abiding are under attack.
Disarmed we are all soft targets for those who will have weapons wether they are banned or not. This is a step in that direction.
If this passes we are headed to an America where criminals have a free pass to do what they want without fear.
It is your duty as elected representatives to protect our rights. You do not have the authority to take them away. Maybe you all should take the time to consider just what your job really is.
Ray
February 21, 2007, 11:11am (report abuse)It is really sicking that citizens need to go through this again. I would hope that politicians with any sense would cut this off. It is proven fact that this type of law does not cut crime rate. How many times have a Cracker Barrel etc been robbed with a ak, mp5 etc.
The type of weapons that are being on radar are the ones that basically are owned lawfully at this time.
Wasn't it steps like the ones being tried that also started Nazi Germany. If anything, the 86 MG bill should be abolished
CTX
February 21, 2007, 11:51am (report abuse)I do not support this bill. It is a violation of the Constitution.
Alex
February 21, 2007, 12:20pm (report abuse)What happened to "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I will not support this bill, and I will actively vote against any politician who supports this bill.
Mark
February 21, 2007, 12:46pm (report abuse)I serve in the US Army. If politicians want to allow these type of authoritarian bills in the country I am fighting for, and take away my freedom. Then this will be my last tour in Iraq and I will move out of this country upon returning.
David
February 21, 2007, 1:31pm (report abuse)I understand what they think they are trying to accomplish: to make things safer, fewer deaths, etc. - but they always fail to acknowledge that the criminals do not heed gun laws, do not register, do not have waiting period, etc. Only the law-abiding citizens are affected - not crime.
Aaron
February 21, 2007, 2:12pm (report abuse)There's enough history of gun control in the US to prove that it does not reduce crime or improve public safety. These reps. don't "mean well" at all. They want a disarmed populace that is easier to scare and, therefore, control.
mitch shrader
February 21, 2007, 2:28pm (report abuse)This treason shall not be tolerated, for the sake of my childrens rights. Thank you.
rikky
February 21, 2007, 2:38pm (report abuse)This bill is rediculous to say the least. They should enforce the current laws on the criminals, NOT make new laws that turn ordinary people into outlaws. The only reasons they want to do this is because they are scared to go after the real criminals and they live by the "I don't like it, so it should be banned." view.
JOE
February 21, 2007, 2:44pm (report abuse)Someone please explain to me , how did ADOLF HITLER return from the dead and start a Fourth Reich in America ? Did I sleep THAT late this morning ? Oh, my mistake, I was thinking HITLERY CLINTON !
Jason
February 21, 2007, 2:55pm (report abuse)I do not support this bill or anyone that does for the following reasons:
1. It is a direct violation of the Constitution. 'Nuff said.
2. The ban is based on cosmetics and ignorant fear, rather than any legitimate reason such as lethality or function. Assault weapons are very rarely used in violent crimes (less than 0.25%).
3. Overall, gun control is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to garner votes. I will never support a politician that believes in it, and will do all that is in my power to see him or her removed from office. Gun control legislation DOES NOT WORK--it actually has the opposite effect (think Washington DC).
This bill will be defeated. We let the 94 bill pass because we were unprepared. Attention "gun grabbers": we've learned from our past mistakes, and it WILL NOT happen again.
Mr. F pt. 1
February 21, 2007, 3:21pm (report abuse)Rep. McCarthy's husband was gunned down and her son severely wounded. AS terrible as that is, that gives no foundation for the violation of the Constitution.
While we are at it, let Congress know that we want the National Firearms Act repealed as well as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. All of which are just as unconstitutional as this.
The 2A does not support explicitly your right to hunt. It does not explicitly support your right to Self-Defense. Implicitly these rights are contained though. Did not Jefferson say that disarming a man only makes him more open to attack by criminals? Yes he did. But these topics derail us from the original intent of the amendment. By doing so it has led people astray making restrictions seem more palatable.
Mr. F pt. 2
February 21, 2007, 3:22pm (report abuse)The 2A ensures that we have a right to be armed. We are the ones the Government is afraid of and rightly so for an armed citizenry prevents the loss of Liberty! "Liberty" is a word that has lost importance in our day. Some will argue that general citizens can no longer oppose so powerful a Government with tanks and F-16s, etc. But look at the Iraq insurgency! They are an underground militia who are doing quite well against such an Army. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"! Congress: STOP passing laws that infringe the right to bear arms. Stop repeating history. Stop this treason.
Gregory
February 21, 2007, 11:40pm (report abuse)...Are you kidding me America? When you ban guns, the only people who own them are CRIMINALS. If you'll remember Hitler disarmed Germany before he went through and imposed his Nazi agenda. Thanks liberals, I guess you missed out where crime went up when the ban was introduced in 1994.
Spike
February 22, 2007, 3:59pm (report abuse)the purpose of this bill is to stop crime?
IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE THEM!
the people who commit "street crimes" dont usually do so with legally owned firearms. this is completly unacceptable.
Chris
February 23, 2007, 2:34pm (report abuse)Futile and wrong in the first place.1.7% of criminals where in possession of Military style assault weapons according to the DOJ.
T Rector
February 24, 2007, 9:28am (report abuse)How about repealing the 1968 GCA and the Machine Gun Ban amendment to the 1986 FOPA instead?
Clutch
February 24, 2007, 11:56am (report abuse)These next few years will see the most extensive atack on the 2nd Amendment with bills such as these. The Supreme Court must speak to our constitution all the while, the UN sits awaiting the outcome.
Kyle
February 24, 2007, 12:57pm (report abuse)This bill is going to not effect violent crime. In the hands of a criminal even the simplest things can be a weapon. It effects the legal law abiding gun owners the most. The voices of those who own firearms legaly and have no intent to harm others with them need to be heard.
Sue Worchester
February 24, 2007, 1:46pm (report abuse)Here's a link to Suzanne Hupp's previous testimony to congress on legislation to ban modern rifles:
http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/23/35/
Another Deployed Guy
February 25, 2007, 1:19am (report abuse)This bill is a criminal attack on a basic right. If not fought in committee, or on the floor of the House and Senate, it will be fought in the streets and homes of American citizens.
Marshall Mayes
February 25, 2007, 1:34am (report abuse)Why dont we sell New York and California to Europe? They seem to like the same things. The state controling everything.
Concerned Citizen
February 25, 2007, 4:39am (report abuse)"They" are making their move to disarm the citizenry. Time and time again, history has shown what happens after you disarm the populace from an out-of-control govt. It is clear now, who is for the people and those who wish to erode our constitutional rights. Rights that are guarenteed and that cannot be taken away from us, because "we", the people, give the power to the govt and not the other way around.
This is a power grab.
freedomlover
February 25, 2007, 6:22am (report abuse)Does anyone remember the North Hollywood shootout? That was the incident in which two criminals wreaked havoc with almost every gun banned by federal AND California law. It happened three years AFTER the "Clinton Gun Ban" passed in 1994! Despite proof of this gun ban failing to live up to its anti-crime claims, so many people FAILED to learn this!
The "Clinton Gun Ban" was also full of irrationality, ignorance and repression. H.R. 1022 is also like that, but goes even further.
Why is history repeating itself? What will it take for sanctimonious arrogant politicians to respect our Constitutionally affirmed rights and leave us law abiding citizens the hell alone?!
neophyte
February 25, 2007, 9:48pm (report abuse)As a dog that returns to his vomit, so do democrats return to their folly.
An OIF/OEF Vet
February 25, 2007, 10:37pm (report abuse)This is an insulting, and most importantly, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, bill, and should never be allowed to pass. If something like this can pass, then all our rights could follow. Americans need to learn to stand up again, and not sit idly by until something threatens our sense of "CONVENIENCE". Those who do support this bill, and others like them, should be evicted at the earliest opportunity
Americunning
February 26, 2007, 12:56am (report abuse)If you're elected to uphold and defend the US Constitution, then why do you spend your entire term destroying it??? Could it be you have chronic case of 'treasonousSCUMitis'??
Rod
February 26, 2007, 10:56am (report abuse)GEORGE MASON SAID BEST; To disarm the people(is)the best and most effectual way to enslave them...NOAH WEBSTER Before a standing army can rule,the people must be disarmed. This is what the elite in congress would like to do to us.They want TRANNY!!!
Stunned
February 26, 2007, 12:41pm (report abuse)Unbelievable. Not one comment for pro-control. I think we should pass this law. It basically bans almost everything that makes politicians afraid. It prepares the US for a socialist takeover, where the government can decide what you do for a living and who will raise your children. It takes us back to the day when the English once ruled with fear and intimidation. It empowers the state and allows the overthrow of the Constitution. It will finally allow the US to fall under complete jurisdiction of the UN. Then you can unwillingly pay for the poor and all men can live an equal life.
...and why are we not file treason charges against these legislators??? Tell me that...
odie
February 26, 2007, 4:57pm (report abuse)THERE BACK!
Ken
February 26, 2007, 6:30pm (report abuse)Please don't allow the law abiding citizen to become helpless against criminals who will be better armed. Citizens can protect themselves better than law enforcement officals.
Don
February 27, 2007, 11:44pm (report abuse)As a police officer in Guam which is a U.S. Territory, I am disheartened again by what members of Congress are trying to do again. Did'nt they learn from the last time, that gun control is a dead issue and will ruin their career in Congress? Banning this so called assault weapons will not deter crime or prevent deaths. oh, and by the way, this are not assault weapons. They look like them but they don't have the full capabilities (Auto-fire) as true assault weapons. I think its time that this nincompoops check their dictionary of what an assault weapon is. Cheezzz..People have been killed in motor vehicle accidents..What's next? Ban cars?
Rob
February 28, 2007, 10:54am (report abuse)How ignorant are our Representatives?
The reason that the 94 ban was not re-instated was that somebody with a little sense did some research and discovered that guess what? Didnt change crime a bit!!
MR/s. House Rep: If you want to make this country safer, do something that will directly affect the LAW ABIDING and VOTING citizens of this country: ADDRESS IMMIGRATION!!
These weapons that you are so scared of have actually been used in very few crimes. Of those crimes only 2 have been used that were legally owned.
By definition an "Assault" weapon is a weapon that has "selective" fire capability. IE full automatic fire. These full automatic fire weapons have been controlled by a class 3 license since 1938.
LEGALLY OBTAINED AND OWNED WEAPONS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!!
I for one take this attempted ban as a direct assault on our Second Admendment.
Is there a part of the statement "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" that you do not understand?
Sniperjoe
February 28, 2007, 10:52pm (report abuse)This bill is totaly disusting. I mean come on , who ever heard of a criminal that obeyed the law. The 94 ban was a total disgrace also and was repaled because morons realized that the crime rate didnt change at all (and assault rifles are also used in less than 1% of crime. As an american, NRA member and a law biding gun owner this is a total attack on my rights as well as all other law biding americans rights. If this bill gets passed i will have to leave the country.
MF
March 1, 2007, 4:16am (report abuse)It is important to note that an Assault Weapon is not the same as an "Assault Rifle." An assault rifle refers to what is commonly known as a machine gun. They too are unconstitutionally restricted. But an assault weapon is a semi-automatic device or whatever new laws they make to define it.
Heath
March 1, 2007, 8:00pm (report abuse)As a Correction Officer I am around convicted felons every day. Criminals already have guns, do you think by banning firearms, criminals will turn their illegal guns in? The only people who will suffer this ban will be law abiding people. Blaming guns for killing people, would be like blaming a pencil for misspelled words. People wake up, if you're a gun owner or not, this is taking your rights away! God forbid something bad ever happens to you and you feel like a prisoner in your own home, it will be too late for you to buy a gun. In case of fire, you have a fire extinguisher, in case someone breaks into your home, WHAT DO YOU HAVE FOR THAT?I cannot imagine the outcome if firearms are banned, can anyone say Civil War? you can take my guns from me when you pry them from my cold dead hands!
GTX
March 2, 2007, 5:43am (report abuse)Most of the firearms I own are covered on that bill. Bush said he would sign any new AWB bill that hit his desk. I am starting to think with the Democrats taking over could make it hard to own nice firearms. Ammo has gone up to the point that its better to stock pile than to shoot. I hope it does not pass. Everytime I find some thing fun to do. They pass a hundred laws on it.
BAK
March 2, 2007, 7:01pm (report abuse)When will this country wake up and kick these commies... err I mean Democrats out? This is just another first step in trying to ban all firearms. Once they take your guns away they will take all your other rights away and then we will all hold hands and sing kumbya together in their socialist commie utopia. WAKE UP AMERICA.
Gramps
March 2, 2007, 7:59pm (report abuse)The Government is not vastly different from pre-war Germany. The Germans had democracy and free elections and later their firearms were registered and theitr pistols outlawed and taken from them then their long guns were outlawed and taken from them. then the final solution was started and millions were imprisoned and exterminated. Al Gore stated time for a change a few years ago. How quickly we are loosing our rights how easily people were fooled into voting for these Democrats again. They will destroy us all.
Jeremy
March 2, 2007, 7:59pm (report abuse)If you haven't already done so, please join the NRA. Their sole purpose in life is to protect our 2nd amendment rights and stop bad legislation such as this. They lobby on our behalf.
michael granger
March 2, 2007, 9:26pm (report abuse)“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain
hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
One cannot submit such a bill and "support and defend" the Constitution as they have sworn to do. If not treason it is at least sufficient cause to be removed from office,
Ernie
March 2, 2007, 10:07pm (report abuse)Why does the Gov't want to disarm its citizens? To save lives? Bull!Ban smoking, you'll save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.
AZ Al
March 2, 2007, 10:28pm (report abuse)This Bill Violates the 2nd Amendment right of all citizens of this country, no matter that they care about that right or not. Once the teeth of our Constitution is gone all other rights will follow. By the way, Article I. section 9 "No bill of Attainer or ex post facto Law shall be passed." What happened to this statement??? Congress violated the constitution Section 9 with the passage of the Domestic Violance law and no one seems to care that a misdemeanor will take away your second amendment right plus its retroactive of the past, I guess section 9 was deleted from the Constitution and no one was advised.
andrew
March 2, 2007, 11:23pm (report abuse)They can take my gun from my cold dead hands
pwhited
March 3, 2007, 3:25pm (report abuse)RW from CT said:
"It's a shame that their are thugs in this country that has to ruin it for us Law Abbiding Citizens."
And how the hell can you read this stupid code at the bottom??
Yes, there are thugs in this country ruining it for law abiding people, and they were recently elected to office. Once the 2nd Amendment is defeated, we will no longer be citizens, we will be SUBJECTS.
Josh
March 3, 2007, 4:53pm (report abuse)I didnt know the 2nd ammendment read
" A high dollar shotgun, being nescessary to bag a deer, the right of the rich to own 4 to 5 figure shotguns shall not be infringed"
The 2nd ammendment isnt about hunting!!! Its about keeping the government in check.
Save a criminal, ban a gun
MAX
March 3, 2007, 5:43pm (report abuse)As a member of we the people, which is the forth branch of our form of government,Iam not obligated to obey unconstitutional laws,and iam compelled by duty to ever be vigalent.
MtL
March 3, 2007, 8:20pm (report abuse)Listen folks!!! We have all heard the saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” With that being said if this bill is passed we can rewrite this age old saying and put it on my tombstone “I was killed by a person, with a gun, that was banned by my Government.” I will be the first in line to give up my GUNS only if every single criminal out there will give up theirs also. So since that is never going to happen, I will be the first person to say I WILL NOT EVER and I repeat EVER GIVE UP MY 2A OR MY GUNS!!!! People should not fear their government their government should fear them….
TheBull
March 4, 2007, 7:18am (report abuse)This isn't going to work with me.It's my right as a citizen of the this fine country,and I obey the law,those jerk offs in washington are trying to take everthing away including your freedom.Go to,infowars.com and find out the truth,about everything,also prisonplant.com,then maybe americans will wakeup.
Sal
March 4, 2007, 2:52pm (report abuse)The guns are out there whether the government likes it or not and since it is illegal to enter someones property to look for them they are very difficult to find until after they are used in a crime. The ban is illogical as a means to stop firearm related crime. Besides, the number 1 firearm used to commit crimes in this country is the 38 calibre revolver. This is all just political posturing to appear tough on crime. What we should do is establish capital punishment for anyone that is convicted of comitting a crime that involves the use of a weapon (firearn or otherwise). Let's eliminate those within our society that would place the lives of others at risk for their own gain.
Tony
March 4, 2007, 5:36pm (report abuse)They want to save lives... then make a law that makes it illegal to manufacture a vehicle that goes over 65 mph..oh wait THEY drive sports cars.
Georgia
March 5, 2007, 2:16am (report abuse)they was no decline in crime during the clinton ban. so why even try to reenforce it. makes no sense.
Don
March 6, 2007, 1:34am (report abuse)The rise and fall of the Roman Empire. See any parallels? Wake up people and take our beloved country back from these self centered and self serving idiots packing for their treasonous acts! Our apathy will be our downfall!
George
March 6, 2007, 5:33am (report abuse)We need to elect government officials that have got the guts to say “NO” when the majority of the people whom they represent tell them to say “NO”, and actually put that body of people’s interest first and foremost. Instead they are introducing new laws like, H.R. 1022, aka: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 that have a greater negative effect on the law abiding citizen than it will ever have on the criminals within our society (Remember what a criminal is? They are people who do not care about the laws…Duh).
Jim
March 6, 2007, 9:13am (report abuse)I am STRONGLY against this bill. I have always thought there is a fine line between law enforcement (government) and criminals. Now I truely believe it.
conrad
March 6, 2007, 9:48am (report abuse)there is a reason why that stupid womens bills never pass, they are mostly uncontitional and stupid if this one passes it will be a first and if it does everyone will be very mad
John
March 6, 2007, 11:06am (report abuse)Americans vote like sheep, either Republican or Democratic. Continuing to vote that way will get the same wealthy, entrenched elitists in power who look out for themselves. That includes disarming you with H.R.1022. It's time to vote for parties who still believe in rule by Constitutional law. Libertarian, Green, whoever. Would the ruling elite allow an election where most Democrats and Republicans were soundly replaced? Probably not. Let's find out by changing the voting habits of America. But in the meantime, stash all of those guns and ammo in a safe place. And don't forget the first half of the 2nd A;A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State. That's you, every able bodied person in America. Get involved, get trained, just in case those in power refuse to concede election defeat.
Patriot
March 6, 2007, 1:03pm (report abuse)The Second Amendment protects all other rights, given by our Creator, and must be protected by whatever means are available to us. This attempt at disarming the people is obviously another step toward the socialization of American society. I call to arms all who read this to safeguard our freedom up to and including armed resistance.
Daniel
March 6, 2007, 9:42pm (report abuse)Stupid democrats dont uderstand the term "shall not be infringed"
Jason
March 6, 2007, 10:30pm (report abuse)On December 7, 1993 Colin Ferguson boarded a Long Island commuter train and began shooting the passengers with a Ruger P-89 9mm pistol. The incident known as the Long Island Railroad Massacre resulted in six people being killed and 19 injured. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy lost her husband and her son was injured. Jim Brady was shot with a 22lr revolver after an assasanation attempt on Ronald Regan. Let recap Ruger 9mm handgun and a 22 revolver equals the need to band a different type of gun?
Steven
March 7, 2007, 12:53am (report abuse)I want to own an AR15 and a AK47 style rifle, for all lawfull purposes! By banning these types of firearms you are infringing on my right to own them, there for this bill is illegal under the second amendment!