J
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
The Left Wing's Gun Plans: Easy to forget after six years of Republican rule
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
And anybody has a question why to join the NRA even though they do almost nothing in Massachusettes?
This is why.
-Weer'd Beard
They don't do much here because they don't here from YOU. If you're not a member, join. If you're not helping candidates running for public office by placing signs or making phone calls...get out an do it.
Sounds like a rewrite of an old (1993), alleged HCI memo, that turned out to be a hoax...
"Summary of Notes and Minutes
Meeting of Friday, December 17, 1993
Rough Draft Proposal for Internal Memo and Five Year Plan
HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.
Following is a summary of Notes and Minutes of a meeting held December 17, 1993 at the Western Regional Office of Handgun Control, Inc. for the purpose of discussing strategy and defining an agenda for the formulation of gun control legislation in 1994 and the following five years. The document is on Handgun Control stationary, and is marked CONFIDENTIAL-Not For General Distribution. Also included is an attachment on HCI stationary which is marked:
HCI - Confidential Document DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR COPY/NOT FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION. The attachment is also marked CONFIDENTIAL, and Confidential Information for use by Lobbyists or Senior Officers Only. The attachment is dated December 29, 1993 and contains details relative to the Notes and Minutes of the December 17, 1993 meeting. The material was distributed to the following individuals:
Richard Aborn David Birenbaum Lee Fisher
Larry Lowenstein John Phillips Helen Raiser
Maurice Rosenblatt Jeanne Shields Odile Stern
N.T. Shields Sarah Brady Stanley E. Foster
John Hechinger Edward O. Welles Charles J. Orasin
Lois Hess Sandy Cooney Amy Weitz
The contents of the document were to be forwarded to the national office for reference, and a series of brainstorming sessions are to be held at the White House through the winter of 1994. A brief discussion on Fundraisers and Press Releases follows, with reference to swaying votes for Sen. Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban, and the drafting of a letter of support to Rep. Charles Schemer to offer additional materials for his use in testimony and press conferences. The document urges HCI members to continue their high profile supporting gun control issues and to continue with their praise of President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno, and Senator Dianne Feinstein for their political courage in standing up to the Gun Lobby. The following is summarized from the content of the general document and the Attachment.
WHAT IS PENDING NOW, AND CAN BE LAW IN 1994!
A)Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
B)Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.
C)Ban on possession of parts.
D)Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to over 5 shots without reloading.
E)Banning of all machine guns, destructive devices, short shot guns/rifles, assault weapons, Saturday Night Specials and Non- Sporting ammunition.
F)Arsenal licensing for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition.
G)Elimination of the Department of Civilian Marksmanship.
H)Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.
I)Ban on all realistic replicas/toy guns or non-firearms capable of being rendered realistic.
J)The right of victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers to be affirmed and perhaps, aided with money from government programs.
K)Taxes on ammo, dealers licenses and guns to offset the medical costs to society.
L)The eventual ban of all semi-automatics regardless of when made or what caliber.
WHAT WAS ONLY A DREAM TEN YEARS AGO CAN BE REALITY AS EARLY AS THIS YEAR!!!
The memo describes subjects discussed during a "brain storming" session conducted after the formal meeting. The focus of this session was to guide gun control initiatives over the next five years. The document states that these subjects may not be politically feasible ideas for 1994, but the members are confident that with continued pressure they can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years. These goals are summarized below:
FIVE YEAR PLAN:
1) National licensing of all handgun purchases.
2) License for rifle and shotguns. Strict licensing should be mandatory for all firearms, whether handguns or not.
3) State licenses for ownership of firearms. It is reasonable to require that all individual must prove that they require a firearm.
4) Reduction of the number of guns to require an arsenal license. The suggestion is that the number be reduced to possession of greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.
5) Arsenal license fees. It is reasonable to require an annual fee of at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00.
6) Limits on arsenal licensing. No license permitted in counties with populations in excess of 200,000.
7) Requirement of Federally Approved storage safe for all guns.
8) Inspection licensing of all safes. This would be a good revenue source, and would be conducted yearly.
PUBLIC SAFETY REGULATIONS:
9) Ban on manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.
10) Ban on all military style firearms. This will be based on a "point system" and hopefully can be expanded to include high powered air guns and paint ball weapons.
11) Banning of any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun.
12) Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range. There should be a federal mandate to the states regulating the carrying of firearms.
13) Banning replacement parts.
14) Elimination of the Curio relic list. A gun is a gun.
15) Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms.
16) Eventual ban on handgun possession. We think that within 5 years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.
17) Banning of any ammunition that fits military guns (post 1945).
AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES:
18) Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.
19) Ban on the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kilogram at any one time.
20) Banning of high powered ammo and wounding ammo.
21) A national license for ammunition.
22) Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.
23) National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.
24) Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
GUN RANGES:
25) Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.
26) Special licensing of ranges. The range must have the written permission of all property owners within 7 miles.
27) Special range tax to visitors. $85.00/day/person proposed.
28) Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
ACTIVITIES WHICH PROMOTE GUN VIOLENCE:
29) Banning gun shows.
30) Banning of military re-enactments. This includes survivalist and paramilitary, as well as WW1, WW2, and Civil War re-enactment's on federal land. We hope to encourage the states to prohibit them from state and county lands as well.
31) Making unlawful the assembly of more than 4 armed individuals who are not peace officers or military.
32) Begin to curb hunting on all public lands.
33) Making gun owners records and photos a matter of public record.
34) Random police checks for weapons (like sobriety checkpoints).
Continued here... www.varmintal.com/hci.htm
"Summary of Notes and Minutes
Meeting of Friday, December 17, 1993
Rough Draft Proposal for Internal Memo and Five Year Plan
HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.
Following is a summary of Notes and Minutes of a meeting held December 17, 1993 at the Western Regional Office of Handgun Control, Inc. for the purpose of discussing strategy and defining an agenda for the formulation of gun control legislation in 1994 and the following five years. The document is on Handgun Control stationary, and is marked CONFIDENTIAL-Not For General Distribution. Also included is an attachment on HCI stationary which is marked:
HCI - Confidential Document DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR COPY/NOT FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION. The attachment is also marked CONFIDENTIAL, and Confidential Information for use by Lobbyists or Senior Officers Only. The attachment is dated December 29, 1993 and contains details relative to the Notes and Minutes of the December 17, 1993 meeting. The material was distributed to the following individuals:
Richard Aborn David Birenbaum Lee Fisher
Larry Lowenstein John Phillips Helen Raiser
Maurice Rosenblatt Jeanne Shields Odile Stern
N.T. Shields Sarah Brady Stanley E. Foster
John Hechinger Edward O. Welles Charles J. Orasin
Lois Hess Sandy Cooney Amy Weitz
The contents of the document were to be forwarded to the national office for reference, and a series of brainstorming sessions are to be held at the White House through the winter of 1994. A brief discussion on Fundraisers and Press Releases follows, with reference to swaying votes for Sen. Feinstein's Assault Weapon Ban, and the drafting of a letter of support to Rep. Charles Schemer to offer additional materials for his use in testimony and press conferences. The document urges HCI members to continue their high profile supporting gun control issues and to continue with their praise of President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno, and Senator Dianne Feinstein for their political courage in standing up to the Gun Lobby. The following is summarized from the content of the general document and the Attachment.
WHAT IS PENDING NOW, AND CAN BE LAW IN 1994!
A)Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
B)Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.
C)Ban on possession of parts.
D)Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to over 5 shots without reloading.
E)Banning of all machine guns, destructive devices, short shot guns/rifles, assault weapons, Saturday Night Specials and Non- Sporting ammunition.
F)Arsenal licensing for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition.
G)Elimination of the Department of Civilian Marksmanship.
H)Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.
I)Ban on all realistic replicas/toy guns or non-firearms capable of being rendered realistic.
J)The right of victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers to be affirmed and perhaps, aided with money from government programs.
K)Taxes on ammo, dealers licenses and guns to offset the medical costs to society.
L)The eventual ban of all semi-automatics regardless of when made or what caliber.
WHAT WAS ONLY A DREAM TEN YEARS AGO CAN BE REALITY AS EARLY AS THIS YEAR!!!
The memo describes subjects discussed during a "brain storming" session conducted after the formal meeting. The focus of this session was to guide gun control initiatives over the next five years. The document states that these subjects may not be politically feasible ideas for 1994, but the members are confident that with continued pressure they can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years. These goals are summarized below:
FIVE YEAR PLAN:
1) National licensing of all handgun purchases.
2) License for rifle and shotguns. Strict licensing should be mandatory for all firearms, whether handguns or not.
3) State licenses for ownership of firearms. It is reasonable to require that all individual must prove that they require a firearm.
4) Reduction of the number of guns to require an arsenal license. The suggestion is that the number be reduced to possession of greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.
5) Arsenal license fees. It is reasonable to require an annual fee of at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00.
6) Limits on arsenal licensing. No license permitted in counties with populations in excess of 200,000.
7) Requirement of Federally Approved storage safe for all guns.
8) Inspection licensing of all safes. This would be a good revenue source, and would be conducted yearly.
PUBLIC SAFETY REGULATIONS:
9) Ban on manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.
10) Ban on all military style firearms. This will be based on a "point system" and hopefully can be expanded to include high powered air guns and paint ball weapons.
11) Banning of any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun.
12) Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range. There should be a federal mandate to the states regulating the carrying of firearms.
13) Banning replacement parts.
14) Elimination of the Curio relic list. A gun is a gun.
15) Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms.
16) Eventual ban on handgun possession. We think that within 5 years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.
17) Banning of any ammunition that fits military guns (post 1945).
AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES:
18) Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.
19) Ban on the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kilogram at any one time.
20) Banning of high powered ammo and wounding ammo.
21) A national license for ammunition.
22) Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.
23) National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.
24) Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
GUN RANGES:
25) Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.
26) Special licensing of ranges. The range must have the written permission of all property owners within 7 miles.
27) Special range tax to visitors. $85.00/day/person proposed.
28) Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
ACTIVITIES WHICH PROMOTE GUN VIOLENCE:
29) Banning gun shows.
30) Banning of military re-enactments. This includes survivalist and paramilitary, as well as WW1, WW2, and Civil War re-enactment's on federal land. We hope to encourage the states to prohibit them from state and county lands as well.
31) Making unlawful the assembly of more than 4 armed individuals who are not peace officers or military.
32) Begin to curb hunting on all public lands.
33) Making gun owners records and photos a matter of public record.
34) Random police checks for weapons (like sobriety checkpoints).
Continued here... www.varmintal.com/hci.htm
Hoax or not that "memo" would make a grown man cry and beg for his mommy! ![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
That is pretty shocking LoginName
Damn! You're a fast reader.
FWIW, not that some of those points couldn't happen (a few very well might), but I hate it when our side resorts to scare tactics and deceit. Let the gun-grabbers play that game.
Meet Your New Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi on Gun Control
Democratic Representative (CA-8)
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. A YES vote would:
Prohibit individuals from filing a qualified civil liability action
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Dismiss of all civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005 ; Result: Bill Passed: 283 - 144
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.
Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit liability lawsuits from being brought against gun manufacturers and dealers based on the criminal misuse of firearms. The bill would also block these actions from being brought up against gun trade organizations and against ammunition makers and sellers. The measure would apply immediately to any pending cases. Several specific exceptions to the ban exist. This includes civil suits would be allowed against a maker or dealer who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in the selling or marketing of a weapon. Design and manufacturing defect lawsuits are also permitted when weapons are "used as intended.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill HR 1036 ; vote number 2003-124 on Apr 9, 2003 ; Result: Bill Passed 285-140: R 221-3; D 63-137
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Vote to pass a bill requiring anyone who purchases a gun at a gun show to go through an instant background check which must be completed within 24 hours [instead of 72 hours].
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999 ; Result: Bill failed: FOR: 147; AGAINST: 280
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.
Pelosi scores F by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
Do not let your guard down on any elected office. If Congress goes back to the Dems, they can devastae what is left of our Second Amendment Rights, even here in MA. It is critcal that we not only elect Healey and Frisoli, but also Rick Barton in the 6th Congressional district (NRA "A", 100% and endorsed by GOAL). Every seat in Congress is critical to our interests as a 15 seat swing gives us "Speaker of the House Pelosi"
Nancy Pelosi on Gun Control
Democratic Representative (CA-8)
Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. A YES vote would:
Prohibit individuals from filing a qualified civil liability action
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Dismiss of all civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-534 on Oct 20, 2005 ; Result: Bill Passed: 283 - 144
Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.
Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit liability lawsuits from being brought against gun manufacturers and dealers based on the criminal misuse of firearms. The bill would also block these actions from being brought up against gun trade organizations and against ammunition makers and sellers. The measure would apply immediately to any pending cases. Several specific exceptions to the ban exist. This includes civil suits would be allowed against a maker or dealer who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in the selling or marketing of a weapon. Design and manufacturing defect lawsuits are also permitted when weapons are "used as intended.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill HR 1036 ; vote number 2003-124 on Apr 9, 2003 ; Result: Bill Passed 285-140: R 221-3; D 63-137
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.
Vote to pass a bill requiring anyone who purchases a gun at a gun show to go through an instant background check which must be completed within 24 hours [instead of 72 hours].
Reference: Bill introduced by McCollum, R-FL; Bill HR 2122 ; vote number 1999-244 on Jun 18, 1999 ; Result: Bill failed: FOR: 147; AGAINST: 280
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.
Pelosi scores F by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
Do not let your guard down on any elected office. If Congress goes back to the Dems, they can devastae what is left of our Second Amendment Rights, even here in MA. It is critcal that we not only elect Healey and Frisoli, but also Rick Barton in the 6th Congressional district (NRA "A", 100% and endorsed by GOAL). Every seat in Congress is critical to our interests as a 15 seat swing gives us "Speaker of the House Pelosi"
Now, I could be wrong, but didn't that 1930's case (Miller?) say that we couldn't have guns which didn't have a military use?
If so, how does this jive with the above (or any other laws we have)?
What about Chaffee in RI?
Dingell has an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association on gun issues.
Last edited:
Nobody needs to see a memo to know that the moonbats want to
ban guns. The "ways and means" of them doing it matters very
little.... as they will often shift those things to suit whatever conditions
exist when they go to push bills in congress or your state legislature.
I'm guessing the idea of these memos was an attempt by someone to "scare"
the "trap on sundays" types into believing that their guns would be
threatened in the near future in a vain effort to get apathetic gun owners
to vote.
The only way to stop/limit the moonbat assault on gun rights is to get
people voting in the right direction (and to extend that, to try to get people
who may not be gun owners, but might be empathetic to our cause to do the
same!) and get them firing off letters to their politicians to let them know
that their constituents are watching their actions regarding the issues at
hand. The best short term goal at a minimum is to turn gun rights into
another third rail- at least get/maintain the notion that the few rights that
we do have must not be threatned and eroded any further than they already
have been.
-Mike
ban guns. The "ways and means" of them doing it matters very
little.... as they will often shift those things to suit whatever conditions
exist when they go to push bills in congress or your state legislature.
I'm guessing the idea of these memos was an attempt by someone to "scare"
the "trap on sundays" types into believing that their guns would be
threatened in the near future in a vain effort to get apathetic gun owners
to vote.
The only way to stop/limit the moonbat assault on gun rights is to get
people voting in the right direction (and to extend that, to try to get people
who may not be gun owners, but might be empathetic to our cause to do the
same!) and get them firing off letters to their politicians to let them know
that their constituents are watching their actions regarding the issues at
hand. The best short term goal at a minimum is to turn gun rights into
another third rail- at least get/maintain the notion that the few rights that
we do have must not be threatned and eroded any further than they already
have been.
-Mike
US v Miller is one of those minefields that didnt really define
anything. If it did what you describe, "Miller" would have been
posthumusly acquitted, assuming real evidence was brought to
bear. Instead, it ended up as one of those chunk of
gum cases that both sides reference frequently.... but it really didnt do
anything groundbreaking. All it really showed was the apathy of the
supreme court at the time to resolve long standing issues.
http://www.jpfo.org/miller.htm
-Mike
Because it's just about the only table scrap that SCOTUS has produced on
the 2nd amendment, so to both sides the little crumbs provided by the ruling as though its some sort of piece of holy gospel.
It's mostly used by the antis to assert that gun rights are not a guaranteed -individual- right under the constitution. (At least thats the explanation the ACLU uses when they tell you they don't deal with 2nd amendment issues
because miller proved that there was no individual right.)
US v Miller does pro gunners very litttle, because there isn't much in it that's
favorable to us, although some opinions have been derived from it. But nothing that's really legally binding or not subject to more interpretation, nothing solid.
The only thing US v Miller is to me is a case without a lot of
sack attached to it. After all, the court did NOT determine that his
SBS was a "military type weapon" and thus covered by that provision. Of
course there is a LOT of good suggestions about how if Miller was properly represented, how things could have gone a LOT differently.
-Mike
Because the gun grabbers were starting to get damn embarassed at having to cite their other favorite Supreme Court decision, US v. Cruickshank. 92 US 542 (1876), after people actually started reading it.
Ken
Similar threads
