H.R.6257 - Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008

To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To reinstate the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. as introduced.
  • Popular: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 as introduced.
  • Short: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 50 total comments.

  • Anonymous 06/19/2008 4:27pm

    This is obviously unconstitutional. If you wish to change the 2nd amendment, the honest and upright thing to do is to legally amend the Constitution. This bill is just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the Constitution.

  • Comm_reply
    ccdesign 02/14/2009 7:45am

    Be careful what you wish for. The last time ‘they’ tried to disarm the citizens of this country….a revolution broke out.

  • Anonymous 06/21/2008 9:03pm

    whaddya mean ? they ALREADY got away with this before,remember ?
    then it “sunset.”
    we are always to keep vigilnt,WIDE AWAKE,and scan “Thomas bill locator”,keep up with the NRA,GOA,etc.
    of course it’s inConstitutional right down to prohibiting legal,law abiding Americans posession of full auto.
    get busy and spread the word.
    public’s been BRAINWASHED about their most BASIC RIGHT.
    right to self defense.
    right to protect their families and property.

  • Comm_reply
    rrtr 12/17/2008 2:00pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    illiterate – what about personal nuclear weapons? Is that a basic right too?

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 12/18/2008 4:32pm


  • Comm_reply
    clytle374 12/24/2008 4:19am

    Ignorant- Please do your research before throwing out such a old and ridiculous argument that arms includes WMDs like nuclear weapons. Funny you argue something you obviously know nothing about.

  • Comm_reply
    ccdesign 02/14/2009 7:43am

    A typical ignorant know nothing in regards to guns. This arguement is used as SOP for anti-gunners. By definition a “nuke” is a munition not an arm.

    If you want to make yourself appear relatively concerning an not just repeating the results of your brainwashing, at least brush up on you facts.
  • Anonymous 06/23/2008 2:23pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Well it would be nice to have firearm prices go ^ for all the stuff that’s been purchased since the sunset. Rather selfish though we need to preserve the right to bear arms for all future generations.

    Bunch of liberal pu**ies coming up with this garbage. NEWS FLASH, the criminals will still have their guns! They don’t give a flying f*ck about your HR.34242 beurocratic bullshit.

    I’m gonna go buy a few TEC-9s just for fun. Oh oh, and some glocks with 33 round mags…mmmmmmmm, and a five-seven or two, gotta stock up on them. Liberals loooove those!

  • Vytorious 06/24/2008 6:36pm

    Those using these weapons to break the law, will obviously break the law to acquire them. It is ineffective legislation and only hurts the law abiding citizen.

    The 2nd Amendment gives us the ability to self-defense and protection. But it is also a check for the people against a tyrannical government. Without this basic right, watch many other rights to fall (Those that haven’t already).

  • Anonymous 06/24/2008 8:21pm

    Liberal pussies? You might want to take a closer look at the 4 sponsors of this bill. All Republicans.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 08/18/2008 10:46am

    Republican DOES NOT EQUAL Conservative.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 11/26/2008 1:51pm

    Im a liberal, and I am also an NRA Certified Instructor and a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor. And I am not the only “liberal” gun advocate around.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 12/19/2008 5:43pm


  • Comm_reply
    Curly 03/03/2009 8:27am

    Those would be 4 RINOs (Republicans in name only).

  • Anonymous 06/25/2008 3:23am

    another travesty

  • Anonymous 07/03/2008 7:12am
    it is also a check for the people against a tyrannical government[/quote]

    Which we need now more than ever.

  • Vik 07/08/2008 10:33am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Why would the average citizen need semi automatic weapons?

  • Comm_reply
    clytle374 07/10/2008 11:20am

    Need has nothing to do with freedom. If that is a argument against something they can take almost everything.

    The last time this law was in effect it did no good.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 08/26/2008 10:09am

    Vik, do you even know what a semi-automatic weapon IS? Or are you simply repeating what you heard some soccer mommy say at the last neighborhood social?

    Responsible citizens own semi-automatic pistols or rifles for many reasons. One of them being that they’re much easier to load and shoot targets than having to load one round at a time. Plus, it’s pretty darn difficult to defend your life from criminal attack by loading one round at a time.

    The quicker you and every other gasp-shock trembling nancy out there learn that “semi-automatic” doesn’t mean “bad killer gun person”, the quicker you’ll be able to stop living your life in fear and come back outside where the rest of us responsible folk are having fun.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 12/03/2008 6:52am

    Semi-Automatic means every time you pull a trigger you fire around without cocking the weapon in any way except in a reload. It would effectivly mean that most modern weapons would be removed from being able to be purchased by citizens. It is a side step to the Constitution right of firearms and means nothing to the criminals who will break the law. The lawful will be unarmed while the criminals will be.

  • Comm_reply
    steveschaedel 12/24/2008 6:19pm

    Why do you need power windows in your car, why do you need an electric can opener, why do you need to drive a car – you have alternatives you my friend and the other idiots that support these bills are ignorant to the fact and dont know what you are talking about. We are protecting our second amendment right, in case you havent read it it states "the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED * it does not say only this gun or that gun !!! If I commit a crime with my firearm I expect to lose that right – until then LEAVE ME ALONE.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 02/05/2009 6:46pm

    go study history then open your mouth

  • Anonymous 07/16/2008 4:17am

    Why are Republicans sponsoring a bill like this? This was the Democrates cup of tea. Which I think had a lot too do with the Dem’s losing control of Washington. I’m guessing that ALL of Washington wants to unarm it’s law abiding citizens and make us subjects. How do we the people keep electing these losers that don’t have a clue?

  • Anonymous 08/25/2008 4:02pm

    Leave it to Illinois. So glad I left that hole. What a sponsor for this characteristically nonsensical gem. Kirk is an embarassment and then some. What Republican has total approval from Planned Parenthood and the Brady Campaign? Apparently only guys named Kirk, like Mark, or senator Dillard. In an age of RINOs, Mark still manages to shine as an outlying anomaly among the conniving limousine liberals of the north burbs. Only in ubercorrupt NE Illinois do you get this kind of issue confusion. I would be shocked if any of his Navy acquaintances still own up to knowing him. Champaign townies would probably rather own up to the Enema Bandit before this clown. Hates guns, the internet, gambling… nanny state any one? He’s your man! And step 1 is to walk all over the Constitution and Supreme Court with this poorly drafted, overbroad and impotent proposal that shows a complete lack of understanding regarding every issue it imputes.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 10/29/2008 10:39am

    Think again. The sponser is from IL, but his co-sponsors hail from CT, DE, NJ & FL. FL, for cripe’s sake.

  • freedom 09/16/2008 7:46pm

    When our fine elected officials have somehow managed to upset any miitia groups within the borders of our great nation and it became necessary for the citizens to take in hand the responsibility of proctecting the original american values on which we as a nation were founded,certainly knowing what you know about politicians you don’t expect them to fight fair, do you?

  • avnmech 10/18/2008 2:07pm

    Here we go, it just another attempt to disarm the honest public. Criminals don’t really care if a law exist to prevent gun crime. They don’t go to gun stores to buy guns, and police are helpless to protect us, they can merely react to a crime after it has been commited. Yes they are a deterrent if they are around, but in the absent of law enforcement we are all victims if not able to defend ourselves. All this bill is is another step towards the mess the Austraila experianced when they instituted their gun ban nation wide, armed crime increased 300%, where as when Arizona went to an open carry state, pretty much advertizing to criminals you can mess with me but it might hurt, Homicide drop 21%. This bill need to go away. Oh another thing I notice the dates mentioned in the 2008 bill say Oct ’93 anything manufacture after that date is illegal, so if I rush out and buy a AR-15 right now, it would be illegal per this bill, so all of the sunset buyers would be screwed.

  • Anonymous 10/24/2008 3:30pm

    1: I am a LIBERAL
    2: I own more guns than I can carry at once
    3: You should too
    An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a victim.

  • Comm_reply
    rrtr 12/17/2008 2:14pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    “An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a victim”

    A silly slogan. Protecting your rights (whatever you think they are) against a government you think is trying to take them away will never depend on your gun. You must protect your rights with reading, voting and political action. If the government ever comes to take your rights and you wave your gun at them you will become either a corpse or a convict.

    I am a liberal and I think the Bush administration has been very abusive of our rights. We need to fight back and try to undo the damage.

    I do not think owning any kind of gun that turns you on happens to be a right. If you do, I suggest you rethink the idea that your freedom to keep that gun is defended by threatening to use it.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 12/19/2008 10:06pm

    NO MAN. You do not understand.

Vote on This Bill

12% Users Support Bill

62 in favor / 444 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments