H.R. 6257, The Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008

[AZ Heat]

I don't know if this a duplicate, but I couldn't find anything posted here... At any rate, it's important enough for discussion.

The following link is to the Library of Congress for the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

At least read the "Beginning" link at the start of the page once you click on the link above. This is unbelievable!!!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Moga]

There are those that believe others who've stocked up on hi cap mags, spare parts, and any evil rifle that they believe may not be available in the very near future are over reacting at the prospect of a Obama nation. I am sure a believer now. He would sign this bill in a heartbeat.

[deadeye72]

No expert here. Is appendix A a list of additional guns added to the ban? If so, this is the craziest thing I have ever seen.

[AZ Heat]

The ban would include possession, even if it was purchased before the ban took place.

[matiki]

No expert here. Is appendix A a list of additional guns added to the ban? If so, this is the craziest thing I have ever seen.

Appendix A is the list of firearms specifically not prohibited by the act, but is not an all-inclusive list.

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

`(B) any firearm that--

`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(iii) is an antique firearm;

`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

[deadeye72]

Appendix A is the list of firearms specifically not prohibited by the act, but is not an all-inclusive list.

Thanks matiki, I overlooked that. Still don't feel much better.

[matiki]

The ban would include possession, even if it was purchased before the ban took place.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

Not sure I agree with you there.

Thanks matiki, I overlooked that. Still don't feel much better.

Agreed... still awful... would have been unbelievably awful were that the case.

[raysheen]

The ban would include possession, even if it was purchased before the ban took place.

no it wouldn't...not that it's much of a consolation

`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

edit:darn I'm slow! :)

[AZ Heat]

Appendix A is the list of firearms specifically not prohibited by the act, but is not an all-inclusive list.

But then if you look at the outline above it, some of those could be outlawed also. They take one step at a time. First so-and-so are illegal, then if there is a flash suppressor (included in this ban), then if.... By the time all their additional stipulations are added, we are left with a rubber-band gun.

[PackerBackerToo]

Sect 2 indicates weapons listed in appendix A to be exempt from the ban.

Edited: Ignore my "Me too" comment. You guys read and write much faster than me.

[AZ Heat]

Not sure I agree with you there.

I stand corrected. I read it over and over again and must have misread. But one thing's for sure, if they don't with this one and it passes, the next one will.

[MattInFla]

The ban would include possession, even if it was purchased before the ban took place.

Not so.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

The law is still a load of crap, but at least it doesn't outlaw the possession of what one already owns.

Yes.

The confiscation bill would come later. The Gun Control lobby has learned they must trample the Constitution in small, incremental steps.....

Matt

[NYcarry]

It does outlaw any mag capacity over ten rounds not owned prior to the Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That's not good, are you supposed to destroy those bought after that date or become a felon?

[falcon1]

It does outlaw any mag capacity over ten rounds not owned prior to the Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That's not good, are you supposed to destroy those bought after that date or become a felon?

I understand your concern (and the bill is the same awful stuff the gun-banners always spew), but I must ask, how will they know?

Here is the Thomas Bill Summary:
H.R.6257
Title: To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
Sponsor: Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] (introduced 6/12/2008) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 6/12/2008 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)


Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 6/12/2008
Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] - 6/12/2008
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 6/12/2008


I'm glad to see it only has four sponsors, but that is four too many!

[dnowell]

I've written to my representative asking him to oppose. Please do the same.