Firearm Sports Safety and Assault Rifle Registration Act of 200_

[tyme]

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/pl/fa-draft6.html

That's only a draft and is not for redistribution.

What we need:
1) friendly Senators and Reps who might sponsor something like this
2) a strategy for introducing the bill: when and how
3) media support
4) a strategy for pressuring Senators and Reps if the Bill is introduced
5) NRA support is probably a requirement, even if some sections have to be dropped

GOA/JPFO support would be nice, but I don't know if it really matters much in getting legislation passed.

[marine]

First - let me confess that I havn't bumped up the mods you suggest against the already exising provisions. I only looked thru the stuff on the link.
Second - I like the link info.
Third - the left wing country of Calif would have their politition's shorts in a bind. Once the pain stopped, I think they would chew it up and spit it out.
4th - I think from a Calif standpoint, only a change in polititions will have any positive results - ie - no change = no firearms, period.
5th - All said, what are you asking us to do?
Mac

[Quartus]

Bad idea.


Strike that...

Bad ideas.

1. Further codifying the idiot "Assault Rifles" terminology will only play into their hands in the long run.
2. Codifying "the medical community" as a Federally recognized special interest group is suicide.
3. Proclaiming the danger of "Assault Rifles" to various and sundry groups is giving them exactly what they want. Why would you want to codify their lies as truth?
4. European laws are irrelevant. Citing them as if they mean something cedes important principles of sovereignty to the leftists.
   

And most importantly,

The Federal government has no authority to "protect the health and safety of those participating in shooting sports, to provide for registration and taxation of Assault Rifles, to provide for gender equality in the militia". It ain't their bidness! Our job is to get the Fed.gov OUT of areas where it has no authority, NOT to further build up that abuse.


I understand the intent, but you don't win wars by surrendering the high ground.

Even from a practical standpoint, do you really think they'd be fooled by this? Run it through Congress and watch it come out the other end with all of your concessions intact and NONE of the Federal regulations corrected.

And the antis will smile and thank you.


Did I mention that this is suicide?

[tyme]

Are you going to propose an alternative, or do you think this is all a waste of time and we shoud do nothing to repeal existing laws? It's hard to argue for the repeal of the armor-piercing bullet ban or silencer restrictions without referencing health consequences.

1. "Assault rifle" is an accepted term for a full-auto rifle. That term was chosen explicity to confuse the issue; by trying to argue against it, the antis will be at a disadvantage because uninformed citizens think that assault rifles are legal as of Monday the 13th. However, if it's really a problem it's no big deal to change it to "machinegun".

2. I somewhat agree with this complaint. All instances of "medical community" have been removed.

3. Did you read the italicized comment to that? That was worded very carefully... "assault rifles can be used to endanger..."

4. If even Britain thinks silencers are harmless, what does that say about our strict regulation and taxation of silencers? It doesn't go the other way.

[MicroBalrog]

1. If I recall correctly 922 (q) is already dead, killed by US v. Lopez 1995

2. I think it should be more limited. Say, to repealing the 1986 ban.

3.Tyme, you're right. The Constitution gives them no authority to do those things. But they already do! So let's play their game to reduce their power. It's not like we're going to get a 'repeal everything' bill through tomorrow.

[Quartus]

Are you going to propose an alternative, or do you think this is all a waste of time and we shoud do nothing to repeal existing laws?

False dichotomy. Not proposing a specific alternative to this bill does not mean that I propose we do nothing.

And no, I don't think it's a waste of time, I think it's worse than that. It is a very dangerous idea.

I do have an alternative proposal. Work to defeat RINOs and Democrats. When we have enough decent people in Congress we can push for GOOD legislation. Timing is a critical component of any conflict, from street fighting to professional boxing to full scale world war. Timing is everything. This is not the time to be trying to pass specific pro-gun legislation through Congress.

It's hard to argue for the repeal of the armor-piercing bullet ban or silencer restrictions without referencing health consequences.

Why?

1. "Assault rifle" is an accepted term for a full-auto rifle. That term was chosen explicity to confuse the issue;

That's the point. It's been confused. It needs to be DE-confused, not confused further.

However, if it's really a problem it's no big deal to change it to "machinegun".

That's an even MORE evil word than assault rifle! Words are the substance of debate, and emotionally loaded words have to be handled very carefully. This is a completely wrong tack to take.

2. I somewhat agree with this complaint. All instances of "medical community" have been removed.

Good.

3. Did you read the italicized comment to that? That was worded very carefully... "assault rifles can be used to endanger..."

I read every word of it. That's what I don't like. This is suicide. You have granted to them their biggest phony argument! They will thank you forever, even if they defeat this bill. (Which they will.) They'll point to that and tell the whole world that the pro-gun lobby admits that assault rifles are dangerous! We'll have this thrown in our faces until they get everything they want. (That's the ONLY thing that will stop them from shoving this repeatedly down our throats.) You'll see this one section of a bill hammered and hammered and hammered on the nightly news, long after the bill is dead.

4. If even Britain thinks silencers are harmless, what does that say about our strict regulation and taxation of silencers? It doesn't go the other way.

Your point is correct, and perfectly logical. So? We're talking about antis, here. Logic doesn't enter the equation. And even though logical, it's a weak point. What ISN'T weak is the leftists attempt to subvert American sovereignty. One of their tactics is to try to get American laws to conform to European laws ( when it suits them). Granting ANY legitimacy to a comparison of our laws with any other nation's laws is playing into their hands.


Even if all of that were not true, this bill STILL perpetuates the intrusion of Federal power into areas where it has no business. That alone is reason enough to kill it.

Tyme, I respect you and I know you mean well, but this approach is bad news.

[MicroBalrog]

). Granting ANY legitimacy to a comparison of our laws with any other nation's laws is playing into their hands.

So there's no way in which America can learn from anybody else?

That's an even MORE evil word than assault rifle

But that is the term already used by the law.

[Quartus]

It's not a question of learning from somebody else. It's a question of making European laws the standard by which American laws are judged. In the case cited, it seems to work in our favor, but allowing that comparison to become the law of the land is tantamount to agreeing that we should model America after Europe.


Believe it or not, that's a BAD thing.

[tyme]

What do you think about "automatic weapon"? Do you have the same complaint about "switchblade" that you have about "machinegun" or "assault rifle"?

Nothing in italics would be in the actual bill. They're just trying to provide some context so knowledge of the sections being changed isn't strictly necessary.

Aside from Quartus's suggestions, the only change in this draft is an addition at the end to remove the Lautenberg amendment. The old version is still at -draft1.html

I think you should be happy with at least the opening statement of the new version.

[DoubleAught]

"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."

I participate in no legislative discussions beyond that.
The Bill of Rights does not GIVE us our rights...
Our rights are inherent. All any government can ever do is
acknowledge them or try to deny them.
I do not ask, and will not ask permission to enjoy my rights.
I am 54 years old, have been in possession of my own firearms since
age 13, have never commited a crime with a gun, and have never taken
the life of another outside the field of combat.

I have met my civic reponsibilities in regard to weapon ownership,
and if that is not enough to satisfy judicial and/or Law Enforment departments, then I invite them to my home in the mountains of central
WV, and we can do the whole American Revolution all over again.

I am on record as having LEGALLY purchased many firearms, and when the
'Big Round-up' occurs, I will not only be ready.... I will embrace it.

The only thing I ask of my aggressors is to bring plenty of body bags.
I am a Marine Combat Veteran, and I can go DEEP !!!

[hbk]

Quartus nailed it, thank goodness for the voice of reason. It's suicide.

[MicroBalrog]

HBK - So would you support any repeal bills?

[LAK]

What Quartus said.

The repealing of federal gun legislation needs to be based on the fact that it is unconstitutional alone; not trying to appeal to subjective arguements that give credibility to other ideas.

Best place to start is the local and state level. Get the right people in the local and state legislatures, and then work on the federal Congress. This is far more important than who sits in the WH.

[MicroBalrog]

The repealing of federal gun legislation needs to be based on the fact that it is unconstitutional alone; not trying to appeal to subjective arguements that give credibility to other ideas.

Frankly, not going to happen.

Me? I don't care what justification is provided, as long as the dumb law is dead.

The progressive dying off of bits of the gun control structure will, in turn, create a pro-gun culture which will allow more bits to be killed and so forth, until, in 2024, Congress can gladly slaughter whatever remains of the NFA on constitutional grounds.

But we need to get there, first.

[Quartus]

Me? I don't care what justification is provided, as long as the dumb law is dead.

That's why you're a liberal, Micro. You don't think in terms of principles, you don't think long term.


The justification is everything.

HBK - So would you support any repeal bills?

Ah, the false dichotomy raises its ugly head again. The implication in this statement is that if we don't like THIS bill, then w don't like ANY bill that would repeal unconstitutional legislation.


Which is like saying that if we don't like vigilante justice, we must be in favor of murder and mayhem.


Repeal them all, but do it in a way that doesn't give away the most important points in the debate.

This bill gives away everything, even if it DID get passed as written. You will have provided them with all the ammunition they need to get the 2A amended right out of the Constitution.

You'll get a temporary repeal of some laws, followed by an all out assault on the 2A, using the ammunition you just handed them. They'll point to the horrors you have visited on them with this law as all the reason that is needed to pass a Constitutioinal amendment striking the 2A from the Constitution. And they'll use what you handed them to convince the mushy middle that the pro-gun lobby is completely indifferent to murder and mayhem, and should not be listened to. They won't need to lie about statistics anymore. Their battle cry will be, "THEY'VE ADMITTED IT, AND THEY DON'T CARE!!!!"

We'll be hoist by our own petard.

[Quartus]

Nothing in italics would be in the actual bill. They're just trying to provide some context so knowledge of the sections being changed isn't strictly necessary

We understand that. But as long as you are granting the authority of the Federal government to make such regulations, to concern itself with things like "health" and "gender equality", you are doing the wrong thing.


ANY LAWS BASED ON HEALTH ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE LATEST OPINIONS OF THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY.

Our gun rights don't rest on health considerations, they rest on the sound and solid base of "inalienable rights". Yanking them off that base onto the shaky ground of "health" is NOT a step in the right direction.

[MicroBalrog]

That's why you're a liberal, Micro. You don't think in terms of principles, you don't think long term.

Quartus, this is not about principles. This is about culture.

Your constitution is just words on parchment unless people actually value freedom.

The oppressive majority of Americans, according to every poll in existence, believes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Yet most support gun control.

What we need to do is to create a culture where people value freedom, guns included.

For this to be done, we must market freedom to people. We must show the real, factual health risks of banning AP ammo and sound suppressors.

It's easy to march for banning guns when you don't have one and don't know anybody who does.

When we return guns and gun ownership to the mainstream of our culture, gun bans will be impossible.

[Quartus]

It's always about principles, Micro. Not understanding that is why you're a liberal. Principles form cultures, not the other way around.

[tyme]

I'm very worried that a strictly principled bill wouldn't get passed (yeah, yeah, I know draft1 wouldn't get passed in its current form, either). The reason I don't like the absolutist changes being made is that I think they reduce the chance of the bill being passed from infinitessimal to zero.

However, it might do some good if the media picks up on it and educates itself on the issue, if the media is even capable of self-education.

Changes to -draft2 include the bill title, the introduction, section descriptions, and section 300, which now invalidates all state and local weapons laws, where before it only invalidated restrictions on weapon carry.

[MicroBalrog]

It's always about principles, Micro. Not understanding that is why you're a liberal. Principles form cultures, not the other way around.

Quartus: Can you come up with a workable marketing scheme that would promote our vision of freedom to the mushy middle without appealing to cost/benefit arguments?

I rest my case.

[Quartus]

I'm very worried that a strictly principled bill wouldn't get passed

I'm sure it would not be. Now is not the time to try. Your approach is NOT 'better than nothing', it's damaging to our cause.

The reason I don't like the absolutist changes being made is that I think they reduce the chance of the bill being passed from infinitessimal to zero.

Tyme, you've missed my point, I fear. Having your bill even INTRODUCED is bad for our cause. You will have put the antis best arguments into the Federal record as being a given.

[Quartus]

Originally Posted by MicroBalrog

I rest my case.

Oh, thank you. Then Tyme and I can get back to having an intelligent discussion.


<sigh> I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that your comment is a non sequiter?


Nope.

[MicroBalrog]

<sigh> I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that your comment is a non sequiter?

Actually, it is not. My point is you can't get very far on the Constitutional horse. You must find a way to convince Joe Citizen that he will benefit, personally from repeals. That's how they promoted carry reform.

[Quartus]

Yes, but that's a separate discussion from the problems with this bill. There are other ways to do that without conceding the centrals points of the debate, which is what this bill does.

[tyme]

Tyme, you've missed my point, I fear. Having your bill even INTRODUCED is bad for our cause. You will have put the antis best arguments into the Federal record as being a given.

I'm not missing your point at all. I understand that you want no references whatsoever to anything implying that the federal government has powers we all know it doesn't have, particularly to ensure people's safety. You also don't want any use of terms that cause confusion, which ends up preventing the usage of terms already written into the U.S. Code. The 60% of the population that doesn't know a machinegun from a water pistol isn't going to be any less confused if a bill like this uses different language.

All references to safety and the environment have been removed or altered. You can ignore section 500... I shrank it because it does nothing other than to eliminate duplication between the tax code and the criminal code. The only things you seem to have a problem with are the section descriptions, anyway.

(a) Section 922 is ammended by adding subsection (z):

No more dodging the issue by the Supreme Court. But I suspect you and some other people are going to complain that not only is this not the time to suggest legislation in Congress, but it's also not the time to force the Supreme Court's hand. Well, I don't have the luxury of being immortal, so I'd rather force someone somewhere to make a decision and then go from there.

If you don't think that draft is acceptable, I'm not sure what else to offer aside from this:

Section 100
(a) title 18, chapter 44 is repealed in its entirety
(b) title 26, chapter 53 is repealed in its entirety

Which is short, simple, pure, and also guaranteed not to pass in any Congress during my lifetime.

I'm not suggesting that we try to introduce any legislation before the election. I'm only interested in ideas of what should and shouldn't be in such a bill, and strategies for how to get a bill introduced into Congress.