03/96 Repeal To Be Voted On Soon!

Emergency Alert!
— Your help needed in passing the best gun ban repeal bill

by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408

(Wednesday, March 20) — GOA has learned that a gun ban repeal bill will be voted on this Friday. It is still unclear which bill will be the chosen vehicle, but sources on Capitol Hill indicate it will either be H.R. 698 or H.R. 125. (See the chart below comparing three of the different repeal bills which are in the House.)

H.R. 464 (the “Bartlett/Stockman” bill) and H.R. 698 (the “Bartlett/Chapman/Stockman” bill) are THE BEST bills. Both repeal the ENTIRE gun ban and magazine limitation which passed as part of the Clinton crime bill in 1994 — H.R. 125 does not (see the chart below). And H.R. 464 even has the advantage of deleting ALL the provisions in the 1994 crime bill which the BATF is using to drive thousands of gun dealers out of business.

The Rules Committee will meet on Thursday to discuss which bill to push and whether or not to allow amendments to the bill. We need to call House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Gerry Solomon. Ask them to use H.R. 464 or H.R. 698 as the chosen vehicle — preferably H.R. 464. Urge them to repeal ALL of Clinton’s 1994 gun control.


* Call Armey (Leadership offc: 202-225-4000; fax: 226-8100) and Solomon (Rules Committee: 202-225-9191, Reg. offc. fax: 225-6234). Urge them to ONLY consider H.R. 464 or H.R. 698. Explain that we need to repeal the ENTIRE ban, and that H.R. 464 has the added advantage of repealing ALL of Clinton’s gun control from 1994. If your Rep. is one of the following Rules Committeemen, then please call them and relay the same message: Reps. Diaz-Balart (FL), Dreier (CA), Frost (TX), Goss (FL), Hall (TX), Linder (GA), McInnis (CO), Pryce (OH), Quillen (TN) and Waldholtz (UT). You can reach any of these offices at 1-800-962-3524, 872-8513, or 202-225-3121. Also, call your own Rep. and ask them to support the repeal!

How the Repeal Bills Stack Up HR 464 HR 125 HR 698

Repeals every trace of the semi-auto Yes No(1) Yes

Repeals every trace of the ban on large Yes No(2) Yes

Repeals all the anti-gun provisions
from the Clinton 1994 crime bill, Yes No(3) No(4)
especially those which have been used
to force thousands of gun dealers out
of business

1 HR 125 retains the politically charged definition of
"semiautomatic assault weapon," ostensibly for applying stepped
up mandatory minimums, but also keeping it available for some
future regulation or executive order applying special sanctions
to owners of these types of weapons. If the supporters of HR 125
want to step up mandatory minimum sentences, they should do this
across-the-board, rather than single out semi-automatic firearms.
2 HR 125 retains criminal penalties for violations of the
subsection (w) ban on large magazines -- a ban which HR 125
purports to repeal. This could create serious problems with
respect to retroactivity.
3 The 1994 crime bill stated that gun dealers can not operate
a business unless "the requirements of State and local law
applicable to the business have been met." This means that the
BATF now has arbitrary authority to use zoning laws to shut down
gun dealers. And in fact, tens of thousands of dealers have been
forced out of business since passage of the crime bill. HR 464
would remedy this injustice; HR 125 and HR 698 would not.
4 See Footnote 3. Gun owners should beware of a provision that could be added
to the bill. It appears that the House leadership may also tack on Sec.
7 of H.R. 1488 onto Friday's repeal bill. GOA opposed this provision
when it was first put in H.R. 1488 and was able to secure a 5 year sunset
as a result. The "armed criminal apprehension program" would serve as an
impetus to prosecute even technical paperwork gun violations by creating
a federal task force which would make regular reports to the Dept. of
Justice on the number of gun offenders -- paperwork offenders included.
Ask legislators to either delete this provision or to at least make sure
the sunset provision remains.