HR-1703 [2nd Amendment Protection Act 2005] ALERT

M

MicroBalrog

New member
Friends! As those who know me [or even read my editorials and blogposts] know, even though I am not an American, I care about gun rights and freedom. I believe, America is going to be the death knell of the global gun control movement, and if we can kill gun control in America, it will eventually collapse in every major democracy.

And now, for action. This year, the House of Representatives and the Senate is composed of a more pro-gun body than ever. This means we have a real shot at passing HR-1703 - Second Amendment Protection Act 2005. It is a bill whose main target is to eliminate the sporting purpose requirement from Federal law, eliminating such things as the import ban and the ATF-introduced ban on certain shotguns in one 'fell swoop', further securing the argument that 'the guns are not for hunting' in law.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the bill is now in the Comittees on the Judiciary and Ways and Means. If we want it to go through, we must write to the committee heads. Remember - when a Congressman is a head of a committee, every US Citizens can call them, and write and FAX, too, not just people from their district.

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=1 <- this is the contact information of Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr, [R-Wis]. He is the chairman of the Committee on the judiciary.

http://billthomas.house.gov/Contact.asp <- contacting Bill Thomas, chairman of the committee of Ways and Means.

I can't write to them, since I am not a US citizen. You can, however. Put some fire on them through phone, fax, or mail, tell them to push HR-1703 through.
Thomas has a B- GOA rating, and Sensenbrenner's got an A. We can get them to do it! Write, call, FAX, pester them night and day.

Obviously, you need to write your Representatives. But moreover, you need to contact America's biggest gun right lobby - the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, and ask them to help you - let them push for H.R. 1703. You may contact them here:

https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx

Also, you may call them on the Grassroots Hotline - 800-392-8683 .

Don't just call once. Pester them with phonecalls. Don't hesitate to call again, and again, and again. If you're an NRA member, you're paying their salary anyhow. They work for you. Make sure they do their job. Remember, they depend on your membership fees and donations to continue functioning


Does it seem hard? Does it seem unlikely? You know what? It was harder for Colonel Travis, and it was harder for Paul Revere, and it was way harder for the people who fought at Lexington and Concord and New-Orleans. But they knew they were fighting the good fight, so they didn't give up and they kept it up.

You have it easier. You have no excuses.
 
One thing I heard about this bill, and I don't know if it is true or not, is that it would eliminate the NICS check. If this is the case, I don't think it has a chance of passing at all.

EDIT: here is a rundown of what it would do: http://www.gunlawnews.org/housebills/hr1703.php

As much as some here hate the background check, I doubt that even semi-conservative politicians would vote for it.
 
Well, I understand it only takes down the waiting period provision, which is inactive anyway.

You can look it up yourself on thomas.loc.gov

Also, it doesn't really hurt if we try. Mail them, FAX them, call the the three addresses above! :)

P.S. And that link doesn't open. :)
 
jef, spread that rumor around and the antis will start screeching from the rooftops.
If you want to know precisely what the bill does, go read it.

The important thing the bill does is eliminate the "sporting firearms" nonsense. That's what everyone should focus on. I think mentioning anything else is a big mistake. Thankfully gunlawnews.org is only pagerank 4. :)

Please also consider the impact of what you say here. The entire bill is flying under the radar of the mmm/bcphv/hci... so far.
 
All I heard was from that site I linked to, which says it. I can't read legalese very good, so I was taking their word on it. Hopefully it doesn't do so, because then I'd give it a much better chance of passing.
 
Flying Under the Radar

On the concept of staying under the radar, I say hogwash. This bill is currently in the Judiciary Committee. It will go nowhere without getting out of the Judiciary. The JC is made up of 23 Republicans and 17 Democrats. If this bill gets serious consideration there, it will be scrutinized by the likes of Conyers, Waters and Wexler. Making serious progress while flying under the radar is not possible.

So what do we do? I say we publicise as much as possible. As much negative passion as we generate in the gun grabbers, let us make sure we educate those of us who believe in the whole Constitution and maximize our opportunity for success. Remember that their negative publicity is also read by gun owners who think as we do. To some extent, their publicity works against them just as ours does against us.

The primary thing we need to do is take the fight to them and stop playing defense all of the time. It is time to get out of the trenches and attack.

On a different subject, Google rankings are by page, not website. At least for the moment, when you Google 'HR1703', gunlawnews.org comes up first.
 
Last edited:
The important thing the bill does is eliminate the "sporting firearms" nonsense. That's what everyone should focus on. I think mentioning anything else is a big mistake. Thankfully gunlawnews.org is only pagerank 4.
Click to expand...

That the truth, man. :p
 
I think in a case like this, security by obscurity might be helpful. There are a lot of people, republicans too, who support the Brady check. How does it hurt anything to keep the number of sites to a minimum that mention what this bill might do to the Brady act? It'll undoubtedly get picked up by the antis eventually, if it gets out of committee in particular, but why not do everything possible to delay their discovering it?

The bill looks to me like it was designed specifically so that on first pass, someone will not know what that first part does unless they're intimately familiar with federal firearms laws and can guess what the federal harassment period is, or unless they bother to look up which public act that is.
 
jefnvk:

As I understand H.R. 1703, I read it, and strangely it is quite short, as it appeared at thomas.loc.gov, it says or does absolutely NOTHING about or with any part of The Brady Law. Nowhere in the text of H.R. 1703 are background checks mentioned.

What it would do, if enacted, would be the following. It would eliminate from all federal laws where the phraseology might appear, reference to firearms being suitable for sporting purposes or readily adaptable thereto.

By the way, nowhere in written statute or in regulations "promulgated" is "sporting purposes" defined. Readilly adaptable thereto is not defined either, which brings us to the following situation. On the basis of purely subjective choices, decisions or conclusions, the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens can and are seriously diminished. I submit that such a situation is one that cries oiut for needed correction.

I personally have contacted my congressperson, who happens to sit on Hpouse Ways and Means Committee. I've also phoned the offices of Congrtessman Bill Thomas (Ways and Means Committee Chairman) and Jim Sensenbrenner, House Judiciary Committee Chair).

I submit that if gun owners do not get behind and support H.R. 1703, then they deserve the screwing that they get from the bureaucrats.
 
GLN Admin:

OOPS!! I just took a second look, and you are right. I simply missed it at first reading.

Personally, while Brady Law is highly objectionable, it strikes me that this "suitable for sporting purposes or readily adaptable thereto" might be worse. Of course, this is arguable. Actually, GCA'68 is objectionable, as is the 1934 Act, and any number of other laws.

It strikes me that the, what is it, 80,000,000 gun owners in this country should have long since have been raising a whole lot more hell with their elected things than they ever do. The phrase Gun Owners Are Theuir Own Worst Enemies comes to mind re that observation.

All to many of the above mentioned gun owners are about as animated as the livingroom sofa, prefering to Let Jack Do It. Sad, but true.
 
Tried to e-mail Mr. Karpa a couple of times. The following keeps coming back to me, with comment about the adressee being "over quota". Ergo, I'm posting the e-mail here.

Mr. Karpa:

Having both read your comments in Gun Week, as well as having added my comments to the thread at thefireingline, I thought I'd drop you a note. Please note that the following is NOT intended as criticism of your comments, which I personally agree with.

I find it strange, not to mention sort of sad that a foreigner had to say, in a U.S. produced publication that deals with firearms use and rights, what you said. Mind, I agree with what you have said, however it strikes me as sad that Americans, lots of them, hadn't already said essentially the same thing.

By the way, when I first heard of H.R. 1703, I looked it up, it's quite short, at thomas.loc.gov. Having read it, I phoned the offices of Rep. Paul, offering my congratulations, my thanks and support. I subsequently contacted my own congressional representative, Melissa Hart, who by the way sits on House Ways and Means, having moved from Judiciary Committee. I've also phoned the offices of Congressmen Thomas and Sensenbrenner, stating that 1703 deserved favorable committee action, and that it should have such action NOW.

While I have no realistic expectation of obtaining such results, every gun owner in the U.S., should be on the horn to their congressional representatives, as well as to the respective committee chairpersons. If they don't, nobody else will. I've already done what I can re this, and will continue, for after all, I have been in this fight since 1963 or thereabouts.

I do find myself curious about one thing, your mention of Sensenbrenner having an A rating from GOA. I wonder how that happened?

Mozel Tov, as my late grandmother used to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top