Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Boston Gun Range may be shut down | Main | "Animal Law" »

The new "assault weapons ban" bill

Posted by David Hardy · 22 February 2007 05:13 PM

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."

4 Comments | Leave a comment

jed | February 22, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply

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.

AughtSix | February 22, 2007 7:43 PM | Reply

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.

Marcus Poulin | February 23, 2007 2:59 AM | Reply

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

Brad | February 23, 2007 5:38 AM | Reply

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'?

Leave a comment