Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rep. Sensenbrenner Rams Gun Ban Through On (Voice Vote)
http://www.gunowners.org ^ | Wednesday, November 5, 2003 | http://www.gunowners.org

Posted on 11/05/2003 7:03:36 PM PST by veryone

Rep. Sensenbrenner Rams Gun Ban Through On Voice Vote -- Time to ask your Senators to oppose the same ban

Wednesday, November 5, 2003

The gun grabbers know what this fight is all about... it's about "incrementalism." It's about steadily advancing their illicit cause, even when support for gun control has little popular appeal outside of Congress.

Consider the statement of one prominent Democrat on the House floor today:

"In the wake of the September 11 attacks, we need to do much more to prevent dangerous firearms from falling into the hands of would-be terrorists and other violent criminals," said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) when speaking in favor of the ban that passed the House this morning.

"We could start by renewing the current assault weapons ban. We could also strengthen criminal background checks and close the gun show loophole," Scott said. "Finally, we need to protect us from [plastic guns]. The bill before us today achieves the last of these objectives."

In other words: "We want much more, but today, we'll settle for a ban on a gun that doesn't even exist."

Scott wants to ban these guns, before they are ever invented, to keep bad guys from getting them. The fallacy of his argument is in thinking that ANY gun ban will stop terrorists and violent criminals from getting the outlawed weapons. No gun ban on the face of the earth has done that yet.

Not in the nation's capital -- nor in Chicago, Los Angeles or even England -- have gun bans worked to keep bad guys from getting firearms.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) authored this bill to extend the prohibition on plastic firearms. The current ban is scheduled to sunset in December.

The Wisconsin Congressman brought it directly to the floor of the House, having skipped the committee process, after successfully urging the House leadership to allow the rules of the House to be suspended.

Speaking in favor of the ban, Sensenbrenner praised the Bush Justice Department for supporting the bill. In opposition, Gun Owners of America was the only national gun lobby to fight the ban.

Sensenbrenner managed to get H.R. 3348 passed on a voice vote, meaning that fewer than 30 Representatives -- those who happened to be on the floor at the time -- were all that it took to extend the ban on these firearms.

In one sense, the ban is meaningless since a completely plastic gun has yet to be invented. It would be like banning Star Trek phaser rifles. The technology is not even there. And no gun manufacturer is even close to developing an all-plastic gun in the near future.

In another sense, however, the ban continues to extend the illegitimate reach of Congress into the realm of firearms -- a precedent which will be used by gun grabbers in the future to justify more bans.

The fight now shifts to the Senate, where Senator Ted Kennedy is expected to push his version of the bill very soon.

Unlike the House bill, which simply extends the ban for 10 more years, S. 1774 would make the ban permanent.

ACTION: Please urge your Senator to oppose S. 1774, and to instead support REAL efforts aimed at stopping terrorists -- such as arming the rest of the pilots who want to carry guns.

Please visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send the pre-written message below to your Senators.

------ Pre-written message ----- Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote against S. 1774, a bill authored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). This bill is unconstitutional, and it is a useless waste of taxpayers' money and of your time. Plus, the gun it purports to ban doesn't even exist!

If a totally plastic gun is ever developed, a ban will not keep bad guys from getting their hands on such a firearm any more than the other 20,000 or so gun laws keep murderers and thieves from getting their hands on guns now.

You have much more important things to do. Please, instead of wasting your time banning a gun that does not exist, force the Transportation Safety Administration to arm pilots.

Gun Owners of America will inform me how you vote. Please vote against S. 1774.

Sincerely,

**************************** New! "Just For Skeptics" Websection

Know someone who doesn't know what to think about using guns for self protection? Or perhaps someone who "knows" all about the need for gun control -- and doesn't know they are wrong? Check out the Just For Skeptics section of the GOA website at http://www.gunowners.org/skeptic.htm to help your friends. Dozens of articles and fact sheets divided into eight categories explode common gun control myths, highlight real-life instances of self-defense, and explore the role of the gun in modern society. Even a long-time activist will find plenty of "soundbites" suitable for talk shows or casual conversation. Tell those skeptical friends of yours about it today -- before some thug gets to them first!


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; bobbyscott; gun; sensenbrenner
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 11/05/2003 7:03:36 PM PST by veryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: veryone
CONGRESS SNEAKS NEW DOMESTIC-TERRORISM BILL THUR
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397fa1e06ab0.htm
2 posted on 11/05/2003 7:05:20 PM PST by veryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veryone
but but but. I thought putting more Republicans in the Congress would stop this. I thought RINO's were needed because we could get judges confirmed and our laws passed and stop liberal bills.

right. that'll happen.

3 posted on 11/05/2003 7:07:01 PM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veryone
got an answer from C-Span's Capitol Questions concerning this vote and House rules...

My question:

Two nights ago, the House voted in favor of suspending the rules and passing a bill. It was a voice vote, and there were only about 20 Congressmen present on the floor at the time. (The bill was H.R. 4210.) How can a bill be allowed to pass when so few Representatives are present? What are the rules concerning a quorum being required? If the motion to reconsider is immediately tabled, does that mean that the vote is final even though only 20 members were present?
C-Span's answer:

Suspension of the rules takes a 2/3 vote to pass, whether it's by roll-call [a certain discernible number] or by voice vote [judgment of the chair that 2/3 said "aye."]
Members may choose to pass anything by voice vote. They have several procedures to call upon if they wish to get a roll call vote.

Only roll call votes prove the absence of a quorum. If the absence of a quorum [218 in the House; 51 in the Senate] is established, the vote would be invalid.

Although the written rules of the House and the Senate both require that a quorum be present at all times for business to take place, the reality is that it rarely is except for roll-call votes.

This practice is known as a "presumed quorum." In other words, a quorum is presumed to be present unless it is pointed out that it is not. That would be done by either a point of order that no quorum is present or by the numerical evidence of a roll call vote not adding up to a quorum.

Members can easily make a point of order -- and do, often -- that no quorum is present. Then business is suspended until a quorum materializes. But the quorum requirement must be enforced from the floor -- individual Members must feel strongly enough about it to make the point of order. Otherwise the presumed quorum continues.

As for the motion to reconsider, yes, if it is tabled the vote is final and cannot be reopened for lack of a quorum or for any other reason. See: http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly85.htm

Best Wishes, Ilona Nickels
C-SPAN Resident Congressional Scholar

So, a bill can be passed no matter how many (or how few) Representatives are present on the floor at the time. As long as nobody present objects to the lack of quorum, and as long as there's no recorded vote proving the lack of a quorum, the vote is final.
4 posted on 11/05/2003 7:10:05 PM PST by veryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
This bill required a two-thirds vote of the house.

What they did was waved the rules and voted on it with the 20 people that were present.

Unbelievable.

5 posted on 11/05/2003 7:12:17 PM PST by veryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: veryone
was it a 20-0 vote??
6 posted on 11/05/2003 7:15:37 PM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: veryone
Thats as bad as letting a judge make law
7 posted on 11/05/2003 7:16:01 PM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: veryone; fourdeuce82d; Travis McGee; Joe Brower; wardaddy; *bang_list
Veryone this is a great catch.

I never expected Sensenbrenner to pull this BS.

Tom Delay better use that hammer.
8 posted on 11/05/2003 7:17:04 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veryone
"Plastic" guns?

What's next? Declaring tribbles to be an endangered species?
9 posted on 11/05/2003 7:20:24 PM PST by Redcloak (Is this thing on?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak; Sabertooth
bump
10 posted on 11/05/2003 7:25:31 PM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Squantos
Sensenbrenner praised the Bush Justice Department for supporting the bill.

The Bush Justice Department may just be the one factor that pushes Bush out the door in 2004!

11 posted on 11/05/2003 7:37:53 PM PST by B4Ranch (Wave your flag, dont waive your rights!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: veryone
So, a bill can be passed no matter how many (or how few) Representatives are present on the floor at the time. As long as nobody present objects to the lack of quorum, and as long as there's no recorded vote proving the lack of a quorum, the vote is final.

That is simply amazing. I consider myself well informed in things political, but I never knew of this. So, as long as no one points out that the "rule" about quorums is being violated, our elected pols (we call them "law-makers", even) just close their eyes to the fraud. This just makes my blood boil.

I know there are dozens of CEOs, CFOs, and other company financial hacks (maybe soon to be joined by Martha) that are behind bars for having pulled off much lessor "fraud" than this. This just lessens what little respect I ever had left for our elected polititians, including the Pubs.

12 posted on 11/05/2003 7:40:05 PM PST by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: veryone
The gun grabbers know what this fight is all about... it's about "incrementalism." It's about steadily advancing their illicit cause, even when support for gun control has little popular appeal outside of Congress.

The next thing you know they'll be coming for your tanks and aircraft ...

13 posted on 11/05/2003 7:41:51 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Here's the bill.

To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms. (Introduced in House)

HR 3348 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3348
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 20, 2003
Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary







A BILL
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BAN ON UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS.

Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--

(1) by striking `15' and inserting `25';

(2) in subparagraph (B)--

(A) by striking `and (h)' and inserting `through (o)'; and

(B) by striking `and (g)' and inserting `through (n)'; and

(3) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and inserting the following:

`(D) section 924(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking `this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or (f) of this section, or in section 929' and inserting `this chapter'; and

`(E) section 925(a) of such title is amended--

`(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p)'; and

`(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking `, except for provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p),'.'.

I thought this was about the House version of the AWB when the 10 years sunsetting provision was mentioned. With the imaging technolgy they have these days undetectable guns will have to be made with anti-matter.
14 posted on 11/05/2003 7:59:14 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: veryone
What we need is a conservative in the white house who will not only veto any new gun control law, but who will actively seek to repeal existing gun control laws.
15 posted on 11/05/2003 8:06:54 PM PST by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veryone
As I recall, didnt Reagan promised at the beginning of his presidency, to veto any gun control law that hit his desk???? - the oppositite of what bush said.
16 posted on 11/05/2003 8:08:15 PM PST by waterstraat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; veryone
Here's the link to the senate version.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
17 posted on 11/05/2003 8:18:10 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
DeLay says he will not support renewal of the AWB...and until I see otherwise, I believe him.
18 posted on 11/05/2003 8:25:35 PM PST by wardaddy (...and Yes, I'll be your huckleberry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: veryone
"Finally, we need to protect us from [plastic guns]."

Squirt gun alert!

19 posted on 11/05/2003 8:32:40 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Mullahs swinging from lamp posts.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I vaguely remember hearing that about Delay too.

I didn't realize this was about undetectable firearms. With Rep Scott talking about the AWB and the reference to a 10 year extension, I thought his reference to magic guns was a section of the AWB. This is a bunch of hot air.
20 posted on 11/05/2003 8:34:45 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
The next thing you know they'll be coming for your tanks and aircraft ...


Now tanks I don't know what to do with, but maybe just maybe we can bury those aircraft like the Iraqis did with some of theirs......
21 posted on 11/05/2003 8:43:33 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: veryone
So, a bill can be passed no matter how many (or how few) Representatives are present on the floor at the time. As long as nobody present objects to the lack of quorum, and as long as there's no recorded vote proving the lack of a quorum, the vote is final.

Sounds similar to "Taxation without representation" doesn't it? Except that in this case they'll wait until later to take even more of your money. Right now they want your guns. They keep this up, and they may get them.

22 posted on 11/05/2003 8:56:09 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
undetectable guns will have to be made with anti-matter.

A gun made of antimatter would make a nuke look like a firecracker, even without any bullets! (Anti matter, when exposed to regular matter, converts itself, and an equal mass of regular matter into pure energy. 100% conversion. Nukes get a fraction of a percent conversion of matter to energy.)

23 posted on 11/05/2003 8:59:27 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
DeLay says he will not support renewal of the AWB...and until I see otherwise, I believe him.

I imagine he opposed this too, fat lot of good that did. It went around him. Expect the AW ban to follow a similar, alhtough hopefully not so blatent, path.

24 posted on 11/05/2003 9:00:54 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: veryone
So, if two house members get together and no one objects that a quorum is not present they can pass a law to throw all Jews and Christians in concentration camps.

Somehow, I'm not believing this
25 posted on 11/05/2003 9:03:07 PM PST by sergeantdave (You will be judged by 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: veryone
For what it's worth, this is what I sent our Senators. Congressmen, governor, newspapers, and other interested parties...
.

Two nights ago, the House voted in favor of suspending the rules and passing a bill. It was a voice vote, and there were only about 20 mostly democrat Congressmen present on the floor at the time. (The bill was H.R. 4210.) How can a bill be allowed to pass when so few Representatives are present?
 
Dear Senators:

I urge you to vote against S. 1774, a bill authored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). This bill is unconstitutional, and it is a useless waste of taxpayers' money and of your time. Plus, the gun it purports to ban doesn't even exist!

If a totally plastic gun is ever developed, a ban will not keep bad guys from getting their hands on such a firearm any more than the other 20,000 or so gun laws keep murderers and thieves from getting their hands on guns now.

You have much more important things to do. Please, instead of wasting your time banning a gun that does not exist, force the Transportation Safety Administration to arm pilots.

Gun Owners of America will inform me how you vote. 

VOTE AGAINST S. 1774

 


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. Noah Webster

"Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes.
Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep
".
Mikhial Gorbachev, President Soviet Union, to the Politburo Nov 1987
Ted Kennedy

www.spadata.com


ps.  STUPIDITY knows no bounds with the DNC:

"In the wake of the September 11 attacks, we need to do much more to prevent dangerous firearms from falling into the hands of would-be terrorists and other violent criminals," said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) when speaking in favor of the ban that passed the House this morning.

 


 

 


26 posted on 11/05/2003 9:03:51 PM PST by steplock (www.FOCUS.GOHOTSPRINGS.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I think it got around DeLay because he's throwing the anti-gun nuts a bone that means nothing, but it would sound bad in the traditional media who know very little about guns or technology. The concealed carry legislation in so many states since this bill was originally passed in 1988 makes this nonsense moot.

It's been thirty years since I took college basic physics courses. At the national labs, do you have any idea if they have any usuable practical anti-matter particles bigger than positrons?
27 posted on 11/05/2003 9:19:31 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Sons of Bitches.....every damn one of them...........

Thanks for the ping B4.....Stay safe !

28 posted on 11/05/2003 9:22:34 PM PST by Squantos (Support Mental Health !........OR I"LL KILL YOU !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Check it out!
29 posted on 11/05/2003 9:42:54 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veryone
Outrageous. Congressman Sensenbrenner is my Congressman, but I am increasingly unhappy with him. No Republican will run against him, but he will have 3 Democrat opponents in the next election.

I don't know what to say about this development, since there is no such thing as a plastic gun. It is a typical piece of Sensenbrenner legislation -- get all hot and bothered about something that isn't even pertinent. But he's missing in action on the important stuff. Notice that he wasn't present at the signing of the Partiial Birth Abortion Ban today. He promised me personally (in front of a large group of people at one of his Town Hall meetings) that he would see that there was an investigation of Janet Reno's Justice Department and the INS after what they did to Elian Gonzalez and his family on Easter Eve. NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH. He was only concerned about the "appearance of the picture" that ws splashed all over the papers.

30 posted on 11/05/2003 10:21:10 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NRA2BFree
Is this the thread you were referring to earlier?
31 posted on 11/05/2003 10:27:14 PM PST by Euro-American Scum (A poverty-stricken middle class must be a disarmed middle class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veryone
Wow...look at all the babbling Paleo-Cons fretting over a ban on a gun that doesn't even exist. It passed in the House, that does not make it law.

Dubya has a long record of supporting gun rights in Texas, and he hasn't signed one gun limitation since becoming President.

Get a grip boys.
32 posted on 11/05/2003 10:32:54 PM PST by Once-Ler (Proud Republican and Bushbot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Euro-American Scum
This is actually the thread I was talking about but it's the same piece of Legislation. This earlier one was before the vote was taken. here
33 posted on 11/05/2003 10:56:46 PM PST by NRA2BFree (ISLAM: The religion of peace, love, dismemberment and murder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
Ahhh, another Wiconsin Republican. Wasn't one of the Republicans from your state the one who pushed this legislation. Now what was that you were saying about Texas?
34 posted on 11/06/2003 3:28:00 AM PST by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal; Shooter 2.5; The Old Hoosier; xrp; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
35 posted on 11/06/2003 5:46:20 AM PST by Joe Brower ("The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I thought RINO's were needed because we could get judges confirmed and our laws passed and stop liberal bills.

Rino? Who you callin' RINO?

36 posted on 11/06/2003 5:59:50 AM PST by Eagle Eye (I'm a RINO. I'm far too conservative to be a real Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: veryone
So, a bill can be passed no matter how many (or how few) Representatives are present on the floor at the time.

Remember the Brady bill? We went to bed one night with the news declaring it dead and woke up the next mornning with it passed. Thanks to notable Republican leader and failed presidetial candidate Bob Dole.

37 posted on 11/06/2003 6:18:56 AM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I couldn't pull this up on thomas.loc.gov

How did you find it?
38 posted on 11/06/2003 6:22:13 AM PST by George Smiley (Is the RKBA still a right if you have to get the government's permission before you can exercise it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
This is a bill for banning plastic guns and for other purposes.
39 posted on 11/06/2003 6:46:04 AM PST by coloradan (Hence, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: veryone
In addition to contacting your senators and Representatives on this, you should send a letter directly to President Bush, ccing Mr. Rove, Bush's evil genius and Jim Carville's clone, to the effect that you are not willing to sacrifice the Constitution and the Second Amendment on the altar of his re-ection to a Second Term. On the contrary, this is a critical issue and you will NOT support him in 2004 if he allows this bill to be become law.

And remember the Amazing Hulk from Kalifornia, who was elected with conservative support and now joins hands with that viper Feinstein to try and enact even more restrictive gun laws. Gray Davis should have been relected, he was less dangerous and besides, Hollyweird deserved him.
40 posted on 11/06/2003 6:50:28 AM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veryone
I didn't expect this horsesh*t from Sensenbrenner. Not at all. And how gutless to do it on a voice vote. No balls at all.
41 posted on 11/06/2003 6:51:52 AM PST by Dan from Michigan ("Dead or alive, I got a .45, and I never miss" - AC/DC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: veryone
In one sense, the ban is meaningless since a completely plastic gun has yet to be invented. It would be like banning Star Trek phaser rifles. The technology is not even there. And no gun manufacturer is even close to developing an all-plastic gun in the near future.

Exactly. I'm going to save my energies for something a bit more relevant. There is wisdom in choosing your battles. I'm not fighting in this one. I'll be fresh and ready to go when something significant comes along.

42 posted on 11/06/2003 6:52:14 AM PST by Barnacle (A Human Shield against the onslaught of Leftist tripe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
"I didn't expect this horsesh*t from Sensenbrenner."

He's not exactly a freind of personal Freedom, or the 2nd Amend in particular. He's more in line with Sen Lugar(R) IN.

43 posted on 11/06/2003 6:57:21 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
All Voice Vote must stop
44 posted on 11/06/2003 6:57:58 AM PST by veryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: veryone; Joe Brower; Jeff Head; SLB
So who was the GOP polidiot assigned to babysit / guard the floor that day ? If such crap is gonna happen in the dark of night then at any given time there needs to be at least three GOP congresscritters present if even one Socialist Rat is near the floor of congress to prevent such backdoor BS.

Stay Safe !

45 posted on 11/06/2003 7:29:47 AM PST by Squantos (Support Mental Health !........OR I"LL KILL YOU !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: deport
Now tanks I don't know what to do with, but maybe just maybe we can bury those aircraft like the Iraqis did with some of theirs......

I'll side with the United States government in that fight.

46 posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:49 AM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley
I just entered H.R. 3348 and then clicked on Summary.

Once before I found they create temporary files that left me creating links to nothing. Maybe that's what happening to you.

Did you try the link to S. 1774 that I made in a subsequent comment? I just got online and your comment is the first that I read and answered.
47 posted on 11/06/2003 7:32:06 AM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley
I belive that's what happened. I just tried the link to the S. 1774 and got an error message. I went back to Thomas, entered H.R. 3348 and did a "copy and paste" on the second version here:

Bill 2 of 2
There is 1 other version of this bill. GPO's PDF version of this bill References to this bill in the Congressional Record Link to the Bill Summary & Status file. Printer Friendly Display - 2,028 bytes.[Help]



To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms. (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3348

AN ACT
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.

HR 3348 EH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3348






AN ACT
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BAN ON UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS.

Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--

(1) by striking `15' and inserting `25';

(2) in subparagraph (B)--

(A) by striking `and (h)' and inserting `through (o)'; and

(B) by striking `and (g)' and inserting `through (n)'; and

(3) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and inserting the following:

`(D) section 924(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking `this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or (f) of this section, or in section 929' and inserting `this chapter'; and

`(E) section 925(a) of such title is amended--

`(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p)'; and

`(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking `, except for provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p),'; and

`(iii) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by striking `except for provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p),'.'.
Passed the House of Representatives November 5, 2003.

Attest:

Clerk.







THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display



48 posted on 11/06/2003 7:48:07 AM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: waterstraat
As I recall, didnt Reagan promised at the beginning of his presidency, to veto any gun control law that hit his desk???? - the oppositite of what bush said.


Of course, Reagan signed Volkmer-McClure in 1986, which could be the worst gun control act ever passed, since it denies all future generations of Americans the right to keep and bear modern rifles of the type borne by troops in our standing army. (Limits select fire weapons to pre-1986 technology, with 1 gun for each 1000 "citizens.")


49 posted on 11/06/2003 8:23:20 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
Wow...look at all the babbling Paleo-Cons fretting over a ban on a gun that doesn't even exist.

So I suppose you have to be a paleo-con to take the Second Amendment literally now?

50 posted on 11/06/2003 8:24:47 AM PST by jmc813 (Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson