« Boston Gun Range may be shut down | Main | "Animal Law" »
The new "assault weapons ban" bill
Kim du Toit has a thorough analysis. After a long list of guns banned by name, and a long list of banned features, it has a catchall clause: any semiautomatic originally designed for military or LE use (not clear if that means the auto version was designed for that use), unless the Atty General finds it is particularly suitable for sporting use, 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."
Comments
There's a bit more at Gun Law News.
Note the lack of a sunset provision. Though, IIRC, neither was there one in the orginal AWB -- it was added later as leavening to get the thing passed.
Posted by: jed at February 22, 2007 06:46 PM
There's something that really irks me about how being suitable for a sporting purpose isn't "suitable for sporting purposes." It'd bother me plenty as policy to only allow firearms particularly suitable to hunting (or some such), but to call it sporting, then explicitly carve out sporting events just rubs me the wrong way.
Posted by: AughtSix at February 22, 2007 07:43 PM
Just because it is a Bill
doesn't mean it is a law.
McCarthy is so ugly maybe this is how
she gets back at men lol.
Case in point....
http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=190&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=2&SectionTree=190
Enough said on that point lol.
It is even more restrictive than last time
and no sunset provision (10 years was 120
months TOO LONG last time).
I think they put a lot of stuff in it knowing that would even make it have less of a chance
of passing.
When we live in a Universe where Schumer is recruiting pro-gun Candidates (the 2006 election) lol THINGS HAVE Changed!
Best,
Marc
Posted by: Marcus Poulin at February 23, 2007 02:59 AM
Ah, the 'sporting purposes' dodge!
Don't you know the second amendment is all about duck hunting? Or was it about the power of a state to have an army? Or was it about nothing at all since no one seems to know how the Feds can violate a 'collective right'?
Posted by: Brad at February 23, 2007 05:38 AM