Blog

Obama’s Record on Firearms Triggers Run on Sales in State

Obama’s Record on Firearms Triggers Run on Sales in State

Gun-shop owners and buyers said the urgency was fueled by Barack Obama’s presidential win and Democrats’ increasing their majority in Congress.

“I’m here because of Obama,” Wickham said. “I think he’s misinterpreted the Second Amendment. It’s not about the right to hunt. It’s about the right to defend yourself.”

For political information and latest political news. Click here.

McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Infamous Clinton Gun Ban

McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Infamous Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.” McCarthy`s choice of words warrants explanation.

Obviously, what she means by “assault weapons ban” is the now-discredited Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that studies by the Congressional Research Service, congressionally-mandated studies, and studies by state and local law enforcement agencies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

Reauthorizing the Clinton ban would be bad enough. The guns that it temporarily banned–very widely used for target shooting, hunting and home protection–are still used in only a small percentage of crime. But McCarthy`s “other purposes” would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.
Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s, and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip,” and would also ban their main component, called the “receiver.”)
All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have “any characteristic that can function as a gopro gun mount rack.
Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 “Garand.”)
Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn`t “sporting,” even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned “assault weapon” with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

For latest presidential news  and Gun Ban Bill US. CLick here.

HISTORY OF THE CLINTON GUN BAN

HISTORY OF THE CLINTON GUN BAN

Newly elected President Bill Clinton wasted little time in seizing upon “assault weapons” as a political issue. Along with “midnight basketball” and the never-to-be-fulfilled promise of 100,000 new police officers, it quickly became part of an effort to transform concern for public safety into a political issue.

Clinton had barely finished moving into the White House when he proclaimed we “can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles.” Then, stringing together several whoppers in a single sentence, he announced, “I don’t believe that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon, built only for the purpose of killing people, in order to protect the right of Americans to hunt and practice marksmanship and to be secure.”

Of course, not everybody in American can buy a firearm—felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens and fugitives from justice, for example, can not—and ownership of fully-automatic firearms has been heavily regulated by federal law since 1934. And, of course, semi-automatic firearms, which have been around for more than a century, are used by millions of Americans for hunting, self-defense, recreational target shooting and in formal marksmanship competitions such as the Olympics.

Like all firearms, except for fully-automatic machine guns, semi-automatics—including those defined as “assault weapons” by the Clinton ban—fire only once each time the trigger is pulled. They also use the same ammunition as other types of guns.

“Gun control” advocates claim that various military-style attachments—attachments that in their minds re-define semi-automatic firearms as “assault weapons”—provide advantages to criminals. But even the rabidly anti-gun Washington Post admits, “Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime.” Data from police experts must be deliberately avoided by those pushing “assault weapons” bills. A clear case in point is the internal memorandum to California Assistant Attorney General Patrick Kenady that warned: “Information on assault weapons would not be sought from forensics laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the “Assault Weapons” ban legislation would be based.”

Members of Congress who voted for the Clinton ban in 1994 disregarded hard evidence, pretending instead that BATF trace data “proved” widespread criminal “assault weapon” use. They ignored the Congressional Research Service’s finding that: “Firearms selected for tracing . . . cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe. As a result, data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes.”

The American people eventually learned the truth, and it was not surprising then that pro-ban votes cost—by Bill Clinton’s count—at least 20 Democrats their seats in the next election. Nor was is surprising that less than two years after its passage, the House of Representatives voted 239 to 173 to repeal the Clinton gun ban.

A decade has passed, and both the facts and the goals of anti-gun politicians remain unchanged.

For Bill Clinton Gun Ban Bill and Gun Ban US. Visit www.clintongunban.com

Follow Us