I Just Received This E-Mail

[CO Liberal]

The gun lobby in action. The Nuts Ruining America will have blood on their hands. - Wayne

* * * * *

From the Desk of... Michael Douglas

Banned Assault Weapons May Be Coming Back. The NRA is Trying to End the Ban and Gut the Brady Bill.

Dear Friend

Ten years ago a progressive coalition of citizens and legislators passed two major gun safety laws: a ban on assault weapons and the Brady bill -- named for President Reagan's press secretary who survived being shot in the head. These two laws played a key role in the remarkable reduction in violent crime and make America a safer place.

But today, the National Rifle Association is leading an aggressive campaign to gut the protections of the Brady Bill and to end the assault weapons ban.

First, NRA lobbyists inserted text into an unrelated spending bill that would require that records of gun purchases be destroyed within 24 hours. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies say this would make it harder to catch violent criminals.

And the NRA is also pushing hard to prevent Congress from renewing the landmark Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Letting the ban expire would put military-style, rapid-fire assault weapons that have been banned for the last ten years back on the street. Police departments, victims' rights advocates, and community groups across the country fear the consequences of getting these killers back into the hands of criminals.

Lastly, the NRA wants to prevent victims of gun crimes from seeking redress from negligent gun dealers like Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, which armed the D.C. snipers and sold 67 other guns used in crimes. The NRA thinks the victims and their families shouldn't get their day in court.

We need to tell our elected leaders to stand up to the NRA. Please click here http://www.stopthenra.com/site/R?i=bjzpZ3yL_iX-_v2Mejv72Q.. to sign the petition we will send to members of Congress urging them to defend the Brady Bill, maintain the assault weapons ban, and preserve the rights of gun crime victims. Or, if you'd like more information, StoptheNRA has a great website on these issues at:

http://www.stopthenra.com/site/R?i=RwhMtgDo5F_-_v2Mejv72Q..

http://www.stopthenra.com/site/R?i=-clHB_KOyST-_v2Mejv72Q..

Sincerely,

Michael Douglas

(Edited to correct formatting errors. No text was altered from my original posting. - Wayne)

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lovedems]

2. He's not trying to take away your gun.

What's wrong with limits and who in the hell needs an assault weapon?

[MrBenchley]

11. Nothing is wrong with limits

and there's no reason to put these weapons on the street.

[Columbia]

13. Definition of an assault weapon

Do you even know what it is?

[MrBenchley]

19. Too fucking funny...

They're the weapons "enthusiasts" are always creaming their jeans over.

[slackmaster]

22. Suuuuuuuuuure they are

And the Roman Catholic Church is the world's largest gay rights organization.

And MrBenchley has me on "Ignore".

[Lefty48197]

27. I'm sorry Columbia, but we don't play that stupid little

"what's the definition of an assault weapon" game around here.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

30. Challenging a fellow contributor to demonstrate basic knowledge...

...about the subject at hand certainly constitutes a legitimate debating tactic.

You're making too much sense for this forum, Columbia.

[Columbia]

38. Apparently I am...

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

32. No-one knows what an assault weapon truly is...

unless you love them as we do (snicker)

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasMexican]

14. "Who needs ____"

So should congress pass a law that that will limit people to only owning things that they need?

Should everyone show some form of proof that they need something before they are allowed to buy it?

[aquart]

3. You keep an assault weapon? Where do you keep it?

What do you use it for? Have you used it? When? Were other people present?

What is the exact make and model of your assault weapon?

You're proud of it, so please tell me.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tinfoil]

39. Here's a game for all...

Can ya guess which ones are AWs and which aren't?

I've made it painfully easy for a couple of them....



http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=19328


I didn't have any of those until 2001... So much for the AW crime bill keeping "weapons off the street" eh?

[slackmaster]

40. I see two apparent pre-ban AR-15s

The one just below the M1A on the right, and the rifle just below that one. Unless one or both are selective-fire they appear to be AWs.

The AK variant is I believe impossible to say from the information in this photo. The shotguns and handguns are not AWs.

[Tinfoil]

46. two outta three

The M1A is also an assault weapon...

The AK, complete with 30rnd nuclear tipped ammo magazine is a regular ole rifle...


I find the whole "Assault weapon" law hilarious.. the bushmaster on the left is a regular rifle, while the bushmaster on the right (the flat top) is an assault rifle, even though the are the SAME F'ING THING!!


Preachin to the choir, I know...

[slackmaster]

47. What's up with the M1A?

Detachable magazine + threaded muzzle + bayonet lug?

Or is it a 922(r) item?

Preachin to the choir, I know...

Not entirely. Some contributors here think they just know an assault weapon when they see one, and that by getting into the specifics of what the law actually covers and does not cover we are "playing games".

[Tinfoil]

49. I might be wrong, actually

Detach mag, has a flash suppressor, bayo lug.. dunno if it's threaded or not (giving it to my dad... boxed up)...

it's a 1974 model.. NM

[CO Liberal]

5. No One Is Talking About Taking Away Anyone's Guns

We're talking about preventing additional weapons from hitting the streets.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CO Liberal]

8. OK - Start With Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, and John Lott/Mary Rosh

They're all useless, IMHO.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

12. Please explain, CO.

"We're talking about preventing additional weapons from hitting the streets."

Please explain this statement to me. Explain how renewing the current AW ban will prevent "additional weapons from hitting the streets".


I am haveing trouble reconciling how renewing a ban that does nothing to keep weapons off the street, will keep weapons off the street...but I am all ears. Do tell.


One way or another, theres some dishonesty in that E-mail. I'm not saying at all that it is on your part, CO. On the part of ...Mike Douglas.


First:

"First, NRA lobbyists inserted text into an unrelated spending bill that would require that records of gun purchases be destroyed within 24 hours. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies say this would make it harder to catch violent criminals."

As if text isn't inserted all the time into unrelated bills, by ALL sides. As far as the rest of it, I need a better detailed explanation of why 24 hours isn't sufficient, before I could agree with justification of a longer period, AND need to be convinced that that justification outweighed the privacy and security concerns of the "little guy" once I saw it. I have not seen that thus far.

Second:

"And the NRA is also pushing hard to prevent Congress from renewing the landmark Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Letting the ban expire would put military-style, rapid-fire assault weapons that have been banned for the last ten years back on the street. Police departments, victims' rights advocates, and community groups across the country fear the consequences of getting these killers back into the hands of criminals."

The military style weapons to which the author of the e-mail refers to, never really became unavailable in the first place. You Know it, and I know it. Anyone who studys the whole "assault weapon ban/sunset/renewal" debate knows if they have read and understood the legal definitions of what constitutes an assault weapon, that ...well...not much of anything was banned. Certainly there was no stoppage of some hypothetical flow of weapons that the author implied when he said "Letting the ban expire would put military-style, rapid-fire assault weapons that have been banned for the last ten years back on the street". Are you scared? You shouldn't be. You're on scare tactics. Whatever that flow of weapons really was - it didn't change any. So lots of guns were sold with 2 of 3 features instead of all the features...so what. Thats not a stoppage, just a change in particulars. Thats about all the AW ban was in fact- a change in particulars. The author certainly isn't saying "Watch out...they're going to get thier bayonett luggs back...BLOOD IN THE STREETS...:wow:" you catch my drift. In that, this lie is exposed for the dishonest scaretactic it truly is.


Third:

"Lastly, the NRA wants to prevent victims of gun crimes from seeking redress from negligent gun dealers like Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, which armed the D.C. snipers and sold 67 other guns used in crimes. The NRA thinks the victims and their families shouldn't get their day in court.


I believe another poster already covered this one...

"If the dealer/manufacturer violate the law, they can be sued under S. 659."-MrSandman


Can anyone produce (not manufacture) information that shows the above statement to be inaccurate?






How can you buy into this, CO? This is an attack on a fictional front.
If your going to attack the NRA, fine. I have no love for them iether. At least attack them for something real though.

[MrSandman]

18. To expand my post, which explains(IMHO)

"First, NRA lobbyists inserted text into an unrelated spending bill that would require that records of gun purchases be destroyed within 24 hours. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies say this would make it harder to catch violent criminals."

I've seen this in 2 threads. I think it only applies to NICS records of approved sales. NICS doesn't have much info. Detailed record is maintained, but decentralized on BATF&E 4473.

Denied apps. should be referred for investigation.

--
"If the dealer/manufacturer violate the law, they can be sued under S. 659."-MrSandman

Reintroduced under new number, same wording.
S. 659 or S. 1806 (Following pasted from S. 1806.
"To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others."
<>
" A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include--

<>

(ii) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;

(iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly and willfully violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;"

You can search the bills...I can't get the link of the completed search to work.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html

And this passed House 285 to 140 in April and has has 54 cosponsors in Senate. That is more than the NRA. Everyone with an agenda (Douglas, in this instance)needs a demon.

edit for qualifier in subj....S

[slackmaster]

24. That would require something much stronger than the present moratorium

The AW "ban" didn't actually ban anything. It's a 10-year moratorium on the manufacture and sale of certain items based mostly on cosmetic and ergonomic features.

I believe there is insufficient support in Congress even for a straightforward renewal of the law that will expire in September. Anything stricter doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of passage.

[Redneck Socialist]

4. This is bad why?

That "assault weapon" sure looks scary! Better ban it.

[MrSandman]

10. Destroying NICS records will

"make it harder to catch violent criminals." Ashcroft's FBI?

I thought NICS records were off limits in investigations anyway.

Violent criminals wouldn't pass, so their records would not be destroyed.
---
"Lastly, the NRA wants to prevent victims of gun crimes from seeking redress from negligent gun dealers"

If the dealer/manufacturer violate the law, they can be sued under S. 659.

Armed the dc sniper? I thought the weapon was stolen.

Sold 67 other guns used in crimes? To whom. The criminal? That is illegal now and would be under S. 659.
---
"...maintain the assault weapons ban..."

HB 2038 would not maintain, but expand. It didn't work. Remember VPC said it didn't work.

[DoNotRefill]

15. With "friends" like these, who needs enemies?

Yup, let's get Dems to push for new, really unpopular legislation right before an election. That'll help...

I guess we should try to be postive, and be thankful that he's not sending around a petition trying to legalize adults having sex with dead kids and schnausers in public.

:shrug:

[CO Liberal]

16. Even Better

Let the American Public see how the GOP kisses the NRA's collective ass, disregarding public safety and general welfare. The result? Democratic landslides, coast to coast!!!!!!

[RoeBear]

17. Could you give a couple of examples of...

..."disregarding public safety and general welfare" ?

[MrSandman]

41. New Mexico and Vermont

West Virginia, well there is a least two.

ed to add WV...S

[MrBenchley]

20. Yea, let's turn our backs on what the overwhelming majority want

so we too can pander to the sort of nutcase who feels his life is desolate unless he can get his sweaty, shaky hands on an assault weapon.....

[slackmaster]

23. If we allowed majority opinion to drive party policy

Issues like gay marriage would never see the light of day.

Sometimes it makes more political sense to walk away from a controversial matter even if polls show majority support for it. People who oppose, for example, the AW ban are far more passionate about the issue than those who support it.

What would proponents of the AW ban do if Democrats simply stopped talking about it? Vote Republican? Opinion polls should not be the only input to policy decisions. You have to consider the consequences of going with the majority vs. going against it, but too often decision makers fail to consider the Zero Option: Do nothing.

:freak:

[DoNotRefill]

26. Uh huh....

just like '96...

[slackmaster]

21. Mr. Douglas' letter shows he is misinformed about assault weapons

Letting the ban expire would put military-style, rapid-fire assault weapons that have been banned for the last ten years back on the street.

That is nonsense. The ban did not remove "from the street" any of the assault weapons that existed in 1994. They were grandfathered and remain available today. It caused gun manufacturers to make small changes in their products in order to comply with the ban and stay in business.

The Violence Policy Center, a gun control group so extreme that it advocates a total ban on handguns, correctly points this fact out on its Web site:

Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry moved quickly to make slight, cosmetic design changes in their "post-ban" guns to evade the law, a tactic the industry dubbed "sporterization." Of the nine assault weapon brand/types listed by manufacturer in the law,5 six of the brand/types have been re-marketed in new, "sporterized" configurations.6 In fact, gunmakers openly boast of their ability to circumvent the assault weapons ban. Their success is described in an August 2001 Gun World magazine article about the new Vepr II assault rifle, a "sporterized" version of the AK-47:

In spite of assault rifle bans, bans on high capacity magazines, the rantings of the anti-gun media and the rifle's innate political incorrectness, the Kalashnikov , in various forms and guises, has flourished. Today there are probably more models, accessories and parts to choose from than ever before.

Equally blunt was an article in the May 2003 issue of Gun World reviewing the LE Tactical Carbine, a post-ban, "sporterized" AR-15 clone:

Strange as it seems, despite the hit U.S. citizens took with the passage of the onerous crime bill of 1994 , ARs are far from dead. Stunned momentarily, they sprang back with a vengeance and seem better than ever. Purveyors abound producing post-ban ARs for civilians and pre-ban models for government and law enforcement agencies, and new companies are joining the fray.7

See http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm for the whole copyrighted discussion in context.

They're right about that. Demand for civilian, semiautomatic, sporting versions of military weapons did not go away when the ban took effect, and widespread publicity about assault weapons and firearms in general led to surging gun sales and interest in all shooting sports. That was about the time the European version of skeet shooting known as sporting clays attained a foothold in the US. The mid 1990s saw a growth of combat pistol shooting and all forms of paper target matches for pistols and rifles. Today there are more models and options available for traditional military weapons like the M1911 pistol than ever before.

The AR-15 rifle has become the weapon of choice for highpower match shooters, with manufacturers like Bushmaster, ArmaLite, Olympic Arms, etc. providing boundless choices for "post-ban" configurations that comply with (or "evade" in the VPC's spin) the ban. I believe there are more AR-15 type rifles in circulation today than there would have been had the ban never been enacted. The ban coincided with the birth of the World Wide Web, which was quickly adopted by gun rights supporters as a platform on which to meet each other and exchange information. See http://www.ar15.com for an example of an "assault weapon" interest group. The site presently has 61,753 registered members, compared to 38,025 for Democratic Underground.

In all but a few states you can walk into a gun store, pay cash, get your background checked instantly, and walk out with a post-ban firearm in a matter of minutes. The VPC is absolutely right that the assault weapon ban failed to accomplish the goal of its authors. It was written by people who are naive about firearms, and in order to get a bill that would pass even the Democratically controlled Congress of the time the promoters of the ban had to make compromises like grandfathering existing weapons, allowing them to be lawfully transferred, and to top it all off the 10-year sunset clause.

Michael Douglas means well but he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's parroting fear-based propaganda that was written by other people who don't know what they're talking about either. The ban was designed to die and it should die. The Democratic Party should drop support for a renewed ban, walk away from the issue, declare victory, and get on with more important matters like education, health care, the economy, and the environment.

[beevul]

25. Well Said!!

"Michael Douglas means well but he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's parroting fear-based propaganda that was written by other people who don't know what they're talking about either. The ban was designed to die and it should die. The Democratic Party should drop support for a renewed ban, walk away from the issue, declare victory, and get on with more important matters like education, health care, the economy, and the environment."-slackmaster


Well Said Slackmaster!!! :toast:

[TyroneStryker]

44. Agreed! A great post. I'm glad I joined DU!

Thanks!

[beevul]

45. Welcome to DU!!!

And to the 'Dungeon.

[beevul]

29. One might even say hes "well misinformed" about assault weapons N/T

[solinvictus]

31. Michael Douglas

Honestly, let's evaluate the source of the appeal. Michael Douglas, a long time Hollywood figure with deep pockets, who likely has paid bodyguards protecting him and his family with the same weapons he wants denied to the general public. I'll go further: how much would you bet that his paid guards carry the SELECT FIRE versions of the weapons he would ban? Typical hypocrisy.

[Paladin]

33. If Michael Douglas Has Body Guards.......

....I would bet that one of the primary reasons they're in place is because of threats he and his family have received from militant gun rights people.

[slackmaster]

35. Speculation upon speculation aside

It's easy for a wealthy person to talk the talk without walking the walk. I very much appreciated a comment made by the producer of the South Park TV series regarding the show's treatment of Barbra Streisand: What's to like about someone who lives in a huge house (right on the beach in Malibu, CA) and tells everyone else they should turn off their air conditioners?

[MrBenchley]

36. You're absolutely right....

[slackmaster]

37. Yes, and it wouldn't make him any less of a hypocrite

IF he actually has armed guards and has actually received threats, of which nobody has presented anything other than speculation.

[MrSandman]

43. Please provide the links to substatiate your assertion...

or is this a fanciful assumption?

[solinvictus]

42. Oh, yeah, "gun nuts"

and not because he's a wealthy celebrity who would be a target for obsessed fans or kidnappers. :eyes:
Tell me this, Paladin; why should only the wealthy be afforded the protection of firearms? Are the lives of poor people not as important as those of celebrities? Why, say, should a bank be allowed to protect money with firearms but a single mom should not be allowed to do so for her kids?

[Paladin]

48. I Don't Believe.......

....that economic status was part of my earlier comments.

[solinvictus]

52. Cause and effect

No, but you speculated that Douglas needed armed bodyguards because of threats from "gun nuts". I offered a more likely scenario and highlighted the hypocrisy in denying the poor something his wealth can purchase.

[Paladin]

55. First Off......

....the term "gun nuts" is yours, not mine. I don't use "gun nuts" in this forum, even against those unfortunate individuals who clearly merit the description, in every sense. That may not be my policy tomorrow, but it has been my policy for some time. Second, I refuse to buy into this rich vs. poor argument you seem intent on starting. Try it on somebody else.....

[DavidMS]

50. I'm confused...

Even if the NRA's effort at having the records of sucessfull NICS checks destroyed, wouldn't the form 4473 still be on file with the licenced dealer? So there still would be a record of the sale, right?

[Columbia]

51. You are correct

[MrSandman]

53. And what is in the NICS information.

Name, address, physical description, only if a long gun or handgun. No makes, models, calibers...nothing.

I believe only approvals are to be destroyed.

[slackmaster]

54. Yes, only approvals are destroyed

Denials have to be retained in case they are appealed.

This is such a tempest in a teapot. NICS records don't even tell you if a sale was completed, only whether or not the applicant was prohibited at the time the check was made.

[DavidMS]

56. So...

The only reasion to keep an audit trail for sucessfull NICS checks is to be able to test for "false positives" and assess the proper workings of the system, right?

In that case, only randomly selected NICS records need to be retained to properly audit the system and only long enough to complete the audit.

Is there a public policy goal that is being acheved by retaining these records?