2 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 Sat, Jan 26, 2013 - 5:50pm
Dyna mo hum
Joined: Jun 24, 2011

Look here

The bill as written sez you can keep your SKS but it must be in the same configuration as imported. The link gives you the skinny...... but remember it only a bill its gotta be passed in both houses of congress first. https://www.scribd.com/doc/122212105/S-150

Edited by: Dyna mo hum on Nov 8, 2014 - 5:05am
Sun, Jan 27, 2013 - 2:40pm
Fred Hayek
Joined: Jun 14, 2011

Do what you can to prevent its passage.

Write your senator or congresscritter. Actually write them, don't just email them. Below is a letter that I'm sending tomorrow. Will it achieve anything? Maybe not but it feels a hell of a lot better to have done something to oppose this than to have just stewed over it. Modify this as you see fit:


January 28, 2013

The Honorable Xxxxxxxx

Xxx Cannon HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Xxxxxxxx:

I'm writing in response to Senator's Feinstein's bill, the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013". I am an independent voter, Congressman, having cast votes for members of both parties. I am also one of your constituents so I hope you will bear with me for just the few minutes it will take to read this letter.

My primary objection to the bill is that it is unconstitutional as it rather clearly proposes to violate the right to bear arms outlined in the second amendment of the Constitution. The most pro gun control Supreme Court decision, United States v. Miller (1939) set forth a standard for outlawing the use of sawed off shotguns that it was not a weapon that a militia member would have. Said the Court, a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon ". . of the kind in common use at the time . . "

Congressman, the semi-automatic rifles and other weapons that Senator Feinstein seeks to ban are absolutely in common use. They are some of the most common weapons owned by law abiding citizens today. In order to justify the bill that has been proposed, the Court would have to take a quantum leap beyond the position enunciated in Miller to a near destruction of the second amendment reducing the right to bear arms to a mere privilege allowed only at the discretion of the federal government.

But Congressman there are other reasons to object to the bill. For one, this term "assault weapon" is vague and with no clear referents. If what is somehow objectionable is the fact of a weapon firing in a semi-automatic fashion then simply state that. To designate weapons as illegal because of peripheral characteristics or matters of appearance is simply foolish. You know that one of the hallmarks of good and fair laws is that they are objective. When the reasons for one weapon and not another being banned appear to be nearly arbitrary then objectivity has been lost and the law will not only likely fail to achieve its desired ends but will fall into disrepute with citizens.

For another, the bill and the apparent animus behind it do not save lives but positively endanger them. Statistics vary widely but even the lowest estimates of the lawful use of firearms by american citizens, including brandishing them to prevent escalation of a conflict, are that they are used at least 100,000 times per year. The loss of life at the Sandy Hook school in Connecticut was a terrible tragedy. We should not compound that tragedy by taking away the means by which rapes, assaults and murders are prevented 100,000 times a year by american citizens.

Thank you for your time and consideration.


Being a policeman is only easy in a police state -- Touch of Evil(1957)