They call themselves republicans???

[Rhino]

H.R. 6257: To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act
Bill Status
Introduced: Jun 12, 2008
Sponsor: Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Status: Introduced

You are viewing the following version of this bill:

Introduced in House: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration.

Text of Legislation
HR 6257 IH


110th CONGRESS


2d Session


H. R. 6257

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



June 12, 2008


Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. FERGUSON, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.

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


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008’....http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257

[TeenageRepublican]

Oh my God...

[hellinon]

Tis a shame indeed. Traitors.

[Taylor1]

I'm confused for once, what does this mean?

[Wolfcounsel]

Any slimeball with a desire to kiss communist ass can pin the "R" after his name.

[DesertFox]

:flame:

[Rhino]

I'm confused for once, what does this mean?
This Act may be cited as the ‘Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008’

[Neil Peart]

And if Saddam Hussein Osama gets elected, this may very well pass.

[DeclinetoState]

Mark Kirk (R-IL):
Kirk received a 75% approval rating in 2006, after a 39% approval rating in 2005, from the League of Conservation Voters, a group that assesses the environmental records of Congressmen.[7]. He received an A from Illinois Citizens Against Handgun Violence. Kirk was endorsed in 2006 by the Human Rights Campaign, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Planned Parenthood (In their 2006 ratings, Kirk was the only Republican to receive a rating of 100% from Planned Parenthood in either house, making him the most pro-choice Republican in congress) the Jewish Political Alliance of Illinois and JAC PAC.Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kirk#Ratings)

Translation: RINO

Mike Castle (R-DE):Castle is president of the Republican Main Street Partnership and is considered one of the most moderate Republicans in the House. In the wake of Tom DeLay's indictment in September 2005, E.J. Dionne named Castle as one of four lawmakers capable of leading an anticorruption reform of the Republican Party. Castle is a member of various moderate/liberal Republican Organizations, such as Republicans For Environmental Protection, The Republican Majority For Choice, Republicans For Choice and Christine Todd Whitman's Its My Party Too. Castle is also the co-chair of several Congressional caucuses, including the Diabetes Caucus, the Community College Caucus, the Biomedical Research Caucus and the Passenger Rail Caucus.

The best example of Castle’s leadership and independence came with his cosponsorship of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The bill proposed expanding the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research, expecting that this funding would generate more research and ultimately greater progress in addressing many kinds of diseases. Presently only those lines derived before August 9, 2001 are eligible for federal funded research. This legislation removes that date restriction, along with proposing stronger ethical requirements. After successfully passing both the Senate and the House, it received U.S. President George W. Bush’s first presidential veto in July 2006. Despite the production of Induced pluripotent stem cell research Castle is still pushing for the funding of Embryonic stem cell research.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Castle#United_States_Representative)

Translation: RINO

Mike Ferguson (R-NJ)
Ferguson's voting record is moderate by national Republican standards. His lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 74, second-highest in the state's congressional delegation.Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ferguson_(New_Jersey)#Congressional_career)

Translation: Maybe not as much of a RINO

Chris Shays (R-CT)Described in the press as a social liberal in the style of a "Rockefeller Republican",[9] Shays labels himself a fiscal conservative.[10] US News & World Report says that analysis of Shays' voting record reveals that he is a moderate, having voted historically more often with liberals than with conservatives, although it notes he voted with Congressional Republicans 80% of the time in 2002.[11] Shays has listed former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich as his political inspiration, saying "Newt Gingrich is my hero."[12]

Shays is labeled by his supporters as a "maverick"[13] and "independent thinker", while conservative detractors regard him as a RINO ("Republican in name only").[14] Shays is pro-choice on abortion and although he voted for the 2003 ban on partial birth-abortions, he had voted against the bill numerous times prior to that along with most other restrictions on the procedure. [13][15] Shays was endorsed by the Brady Campaign for his support for gun control and was one of only six Republicans to vote against banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors in 2005.[16]. Shays generally votes with the Democratic Party on matters affecting gays and lesbians; he has voted against the federal marriage amendment and co-sponsored a bill to overturn the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. He is one of the few Republicans to oppose amending the constitution to ban flag-burning. In 1999 he was one of 20 Republicans to vote against an ultimately failed bill to ban physician assisted suicide. The Congressman has long been known for environmental regulations,[10] and was endorsed in the past election by the League of Conservation Voters.[17] He also advocates humane treatment of animals[18] and ending discrimination in the workplace.[19]Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Shays#Political_views)

Translation: RINO

[Rhino]

Statistics: Mark Kirk has sponsored 88 bills since Jan 3, 2001, of which 76 haven't made it out of committee (Average) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers).Same site as above.

[Maggie_T]

They call themselves republicans???


They CALL themselves that. What they ARE are gun-grabbers-ass-kissing traitors. A plague on these idiots.

GOP, R.I.P.

[Maggie_T]

Hang on a mo. If Scalia gets to write the paper (or whatever you call it) on Heller vs. D.C., won't that leave these miserable PoS with egg on their face? Please tell me it will? Please?

[DoctorDoom]

Like the original "ban", this is liberal feelgoodism that does exactly nothing.

Here is what this farce says:

1. It is called a "ban."
2. It lists several specific brands.
3. It says no more of the 1994 models may be manufactured.
4. It allows the sale of each of these models manufactured before the law passed.
5. It expires in 10 years, even though there is more than a 10-year supply of these models in the marketplace.
6. It allows the manufacture of these models if one or more specific "features" are changed.
7. It lists hundreds and hundreds of models that are not covered.

That’s it. Read the list carefully again, because there are a number of "clever" sections that negate the supposed purpose, and this was done by design.

Here is what the actual effect is:

1. Nothing is banned, because there are more than enough of the few models listed and made before the law passed to outlast the 10-year period before the law expires.
2. There is absolutely no impact on 1995 and newer models, which have been reconfigured in line with the "features test" included in the law.
3. Bottom line: no difference whatsoever as a result of this law.

Importantly, the overall impact of having conducted this charade is that other more effective measures to actually fight violent crime were delayed.

And enforcement of the countless thousands of gun laws already on the books has been virtually non-existent.More Blood on the Hands of the Left (https://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/26/192816.shtml)

This was a Newsmax article by Dan Frisa in 2000. It apparently was purged from the NM archives. The full article as a text file is attached. It exposes the fraud of the original ban. Reinstating it will achieve nothing.

[Rhino]

Hang on a mo. If Scalia gets to write the paper (or whatever you call it) on Heller vs. D.C., won't that leave these miserable PoS with egg on their face? Please tell me it will? Please?

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53....

...2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64....http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[Rhino]

1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people”
in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble
(“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people”
will choose members of the House), and the Tenth
Amendment (providing that those powers not given the
Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the
people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people”
acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or
reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the
Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer
to anything other than an individual right.6
What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution
that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-
Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed
in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its
uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the
Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second
Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved
in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to
a class of persons who are part of a national community
or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that
community.”
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in
the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia”
in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—
those who were male, able bodied, and within a
certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as
protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an
organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative
clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the
people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the
Second Amendment right is exercised individually and
belongs to all Americans....

...From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude
that this natural meaning was also the meaning that
“bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances,
“bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to
the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
The most prominent examples are those most relevant to
the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions
written in the 18th century or the first two decades
of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear
arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms
in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those
formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry-
ing a weapon in an organized military unit....

...c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
. . . .”16...

...b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of
a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued,
see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his
treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used
in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it
means the people composing a particular nation or community.”...

...3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and
Operative Clause
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied
men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents. This is
what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was
not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was)
but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that
the federal government would disarm the people in order
to impose rule through a standing army or select militia
was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric....

...It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s
prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified
in a written Constitution....

...1. Post-ratification Commentary
Three important founding-era legal scholars interpreted
the Second Amendment in published writings. All three
understood it to protect an individual right unconnected
with militia service....

We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses
our adoption of the original understanding of the Second
Amendment. It should be unsurprising that such a significant
matter has been for so long judicially unresolved.
For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought
applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did
not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by
law-abiding citizens. Other provisions of the Bill of Rights
have similarly remained unilluminated for lengthy periods.
This Court first held a law to violate the First
Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech in 1931,
almost 150 years after the Amendment was ratified, see
Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931), and
it was not until after World War II that we held a law
invalid under the Establishment Clause, see Illinois ex rel.
McCollum v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 71, Champaign
Cty., 333 U. S. 203 (1948). Even a question as basic
as the scope of proscribable libel was not addressed by this
Court until 1964, nearly two centuries after the founding.
See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964).
It is demonstrably not true that, as JUSTICE STEVENS
claims, post, at 41–42, “for most of our history, the invalidity
of Second-Amendment-based objections to firearms
regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial.”
For most of our history the question did not present itself....

...We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have
said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home.
It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be
disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering
it inoperable.
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied
to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from
the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to
‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”
478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.
Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to
the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And
some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v.
State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition
on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a
prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at
251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court
likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a
pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or
place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the
state constitutional provision (which the court equated
with the Second Amendment). That was so even though
the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid.
See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A
statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts
to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be
so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose
of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible
to ban the possession of handguns so long as the
possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It
is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American
people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential
self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a
citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier
to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;
it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by
an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody
strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed
at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the
police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popu-
lar weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the
home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

We must also address the District’s requirement (as
applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the
home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
The District argues that we should interpret this
element of the statute to contain an exception for selfdefense.
See Brief for Petitioners 56–57. But we think
that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the
presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: “Except
for law enforcement personnel . . . , each registrant shall
keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled
or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless
such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while
being used for lawful recreational purposes within the
District of Columbia.” D. C. Code §7–2507.02. The nonexistence
of a self-defense exception is also suggested by
the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute
forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders, see
McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A. 2d 744, 755–756 (1978).28
Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the
trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District
Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate
licensing requirement “in such a manner as to forbid the
carrying of a firearm within one’s home or possessed land
without a license.” App. 59a. The Court of Appeals did
not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only
that the District “may not prevent [a handgun] from being
moved throughout one’s house.” 478 F. 3d, at 400. It then
ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment
“consistent with [respondent’s] prayer for relief.” Id., at
401. Before this Court petitioners have stated that “if the
handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a
handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not
otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean if
he is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners
58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does
not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s
law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75.
We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license
will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address
the licensing requirement....Same link.

You guys should go and read it. Scalia was brutal in his criticism of Stevens' dissent arguments.