Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic

Quote:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

jdege wrote:

I'd have opposed HR 1022 just from a glance at the title, or from knowledge of who had written it. But a glance inside at the details reveals that it is worse than I would ever have imagined:

Quote:

Which semiautomatic rifle isn't based on the design of a weapon originally designed for military or law enforcement use?

jdege wrote:

a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

Quote:

The use of any firearm in organized competition will create the presumption that that firearm is suitable for sporting purposes.

Tex wrote:

Congressman Oberstar got back to me. Took a couple of days, but it happen. He has always been given high marks from the NRA, but I wanted to tell him to keep up the good work. Here is what he said:

Dear Tex: (my edit)

Thank you for your expression of opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act (H.R. 1022). I appreciate hearing from you concerning this important issue.

H.R. 1022 would reinstate for 10 years the assault weapons ban which expired on September 13, 2004. This legislation is currently awaiting consideration in the House Committee on the Judiciary.

I am following this issue closely and will keep your views in mind as debate over Second Amendment rights continues.

If you would like to receive periodic e-mail updates on issues before Congress, please visit my Web site, www.house.gov/oberstar, and go to "subscribe."

With best wishes.

Sincerely,

James L. Oberstar, M.C.

JLO/jjr

Tex wrote:

Author:	jdege [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:18 am ]
Post subject:	Details from HR 1022
I'd have opposed HR 1022 just from a glance at the title, or from knowledge of who had written it. But a glance inside at the details reveals that it is worse than I would ever have imagined: Quote: SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. (30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following: (L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'. Which semiautomatic rifle isn't based on the design of a weapon originally designed for military or law enforcement use?

Author:	Selurcspi [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Details from HR 1022
jdege wrote: I'd have opposed HR 1022 just from a glance at the title, or from knowledge of who had written it. But a glance inside at the details reveals that it is worse than I would ever have imagined: Quote: SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. (30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following: (L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'. Which semiautomatic rifle isn't based on the design of a weapon originally designed for military or law enforcement use? Drop the small text word and it reads the same and bans more, which will be next! Muskets were designed for the military...Dog locks...Snaphaunces…. Match locks.....it never ends if they word it right. And it looks like they've worded it right It's not about guns, it's about Control......

Author:	sigman [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:18 am ]
Post subject:
I hate gun grabbers.

Author:	Tex [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:53 am ]
Post subject:
Sent letter to Congressman Oberstar this morning thanking him for his continued support of 2A. 'I am certain that you will do everything in your power to see that HR 1022 does not pass'. I hope to see a reply.

Author:	jdege [ Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Details from HR 1022
jdege wrote: a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'. Might I propose an alternative? Quote: The use of any firearm in organized competition will create the presumption that that firearm is suitable for sporting purposes.

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/

Details from HR 1022 http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4525	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Tex [ Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Congressman Oberstar got back to me. Took a couple of days, but it happen. He has always been given high marks from the NRA, but I wanted to tell him to keep up the good work. Here is what he said: Dear Tex: (my edit) Thank you for your expression of opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act (H.R. 1022). I appreciate hearing from you concerning this important issue. H.R. 1022 would reinstate for 10 years the assault weapons ban which expired on September 13, 2004. This legislation is currently awaiting consideration in the House Committee on the Judiciary. I am following this issue closely and will keep your views in mind as debate over Second Amendment rights continues. If you would like to receive periodic e-mail updates on issues before Congress, please visit my Web site, www.house.gov/oberstar, and go to "subscribe." With best wishes. Sincerely, James L. Oberstar, M.C. JLO/jjr

Author:	Jeff C. [ Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Tex wrote: Congressman Oberstar got back to me. Took a couple of days, but it happen. He has always been given high marks from the NRA, but I wanted to tell him to keep up the good work. Here is what he said: Dear Tex: (my edit) Thank you for your expression of opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act (H.R. 1022). I appreciate hearing from you concerning this important issue. H.R. 1022 would reinstate for 10 years the assault weapons ban which expired on September 13, 2004. This legislation is currently awaiting consideration in the House Committee on the Judiciary. I am following this issue closely and will keep your views in mind as debate over Second Amendment rights continues. If you would like to receive periodic e-mail updates on issues before Congress, please visit my Web site, www.house.gov/oberstar, and go to "subscribe." With best wishes. Sincerely, James L. Oberstar, M.C. JLO/jjr He only says he will be watching the issue and keeping your views in mind, but not what his view is on the subject... That letter could have, and probably has, been sent to someone on either side of the issue. Jeff C.

Author:	sigman [ Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Tex wrote: Congressman Oberstar got back to me. Took a couple of days, but it happen. He has always been given high marks from the NRA, but I wanted to tell him to keep up the good work. Here is what he said: Dear Tex: (my edit) Thank you for your expression of opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act (H.R. 1022). I appreciate hearing from you concerning this important issue. H.R. 1022 would reinstate for 10 years the assault weapons ban which expired on September 13, 2004. This legislation is currently awaiting consideration in the House Committee on the Judiciary. I am following this issue closely and will keep your views in mind as debate over Second Amendment rights continues. If you would like to receive periodic e-mail updates on issues before Congress, please visit my Web site, www.house.gov/oberstar, and go to "subscribe." With best wishes. Sincerely, James L. Oberstar, M.C. JLO/jjr That doesn't sound like a very supportive statement.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/