If the discussion is about AR-15's, then it's not worth having. AR-15's don't warrant a ban at this time.
If the discussion is about AR-15's, then it's not worth having. AR-15's don't warrant a ban at this time.
I guess Piers and his incompetent research staff cant find anything.
Person who defended his house with an AR. He needs to take his ass back across the water and stay there.
You should look at this site. These are the people that the antigun posters in the forum want us to disarm and have protect us. If anything we need to protect ourselves from them also.
Last edited by ugotownd; 2013-01-27 at 05:52 AM.
I would think you don't have to pick "pro-gun" or "anti-gun." It doesn't always have to be us versus them. Personally I would call you neutral in this discussion, or a person in favor of liberties afforded by the constitution maybe.
Last edited by Rajadog20; 2013-01-27 at 06:11 AM.
The Art of War- FT 4/4 EE 4/5
I mean, handguns are already used in 90% of all firearm homicides. Trying to argue that assault weapons are more dangerous than handguns seems ridiculous.
---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 09:58 AM ----------
So the full text of Feinstein's proposed bill is up, including her list of 2224 exempted firearms. I guess she's being pretty lenient, huh, exempting that many firearms from the ban?
No, not really.
Of those 2224 firearms, only 305 are even semi-automatic. And since her bill only applies to semi-automatics, how are the multitudes of slide-action, pump-action, bolt-action, lever-action, single shot, over/under, and side-by-side firearms that she lists here "exempted" when they were never under threat of the ban in the first place?
Of the remaining 305 semi-automatic firearms, 224 of them are shotguns, leaving only 81 semi-automatic rifles. And 48 of those are rimfire rifles, which not even California included in their 1989 ban.
So yes, that list includes a whopping 33 semi-automatic centerfire rifles, none of which even meet the criteria for an assault weapon anyway. So again, how can these be "exemptions" if they are never included in the ban in the first place?
What's the point of specifically listing 2224 firearms as an exemption to the law, when the law wouldn't even affect them? Clearly it's a smoke-screen designed to make people think that she's being lenient towards said firearms.
Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2013-01-27 at 06:07 PM.
That being said, there are a few on that list which I think you missed. The Ruger 10/22 is called out specifically as exempt and could potentially fall under her bullshit law.
I don't have the time or effort but I've yet to hear anyone cover the actual "legality" of things. You can take a great deal of these weapons an put them in a different stock. It hasn't been clarified whether or not the weapon is illegal or the stock is illegal.
---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 02:25 PM ----------
"9 ‘‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import,
10 sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting
11 interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault
The Commerce Clause, because a gun made in your state and sitting in your safe must be regulated by the federal government because it "may affect interstate commerce" at some point, in theory.
I think this is the other half of the argument which gets drowned out a bit. The only way to prove this is to have every serial number on file and for some one somewhere know every piece of kit you already own. That would be the only way to either truly enforce such a measure or to prevent things from being skirted around.
The Mini14 is listed as exempt in this one too, actually. (though specifically excluding a "folding stock") The Benelli's M1's are a very popular race-gun, usually they're bumped to 7 or 10 rounds for competition. They come as either 3 or 5.
As listed, a Benelli M1 is exempt from being an assault weapon. When you add a new feature, I assume it would be "manufacturing an assault weapon" from something that isn't one. The relevant code would be;
13 ‘‘(E) the importation, sale, manufacture, trans
14fer, or possession of a firearm specified in Appendix
15 A to this section, as such firearm was manufactured
16 on the date of introduction of the Assault Weapons
17 Ban of 2013.
If you change it from the version as it was on the date of enactment (1022 compact has wooden regular stock) you lose the exemption.
So, the same as before, the exemptions listed are guns that are in no way affected by the law to begin with and there is no reason to list them individually. By the same token, it is pointless to list guns that ARE banned, by name, given you're banning them all by feature anyway.
Even assuming the law wasn't stupid to begin with, the fact they seperate "collapsing stock" as a feature vs "pistol grip" means any shotgun that has an adjustable stock (for length of pull) is an Assault Weapon, even though it is in no way a "military feature".
---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 02:51 PM ----------
Similarly, I bought a 10-22 receiver. (not factory ruger) It had never been assembled as a firearm before. I can therefor assemble it either as a pistol or a rifle. The law dictates that a pistol can be changed to a rifle and back again, without a problem. But, a rifle cannot be converted into a pistol. I built it as a pistol first, didn't care for that setup, so changed it to a rifle. Legally I can change it back to a pistol since that was "first", but how would I prove that it was a pistol first? How would they prove it wasn't?
The obvious answer of course is, no one gives a shit, only law abiding citizens. No one will investigate claims of you having built an assault weapon illegally, doing the research to see when you purchased which parts, if they even COULD do it. ATF doesn't give a fuck about enforcing the laws on any individual manner, only when they have large cases. If they have some guy building illegal AR's by the dozens, they'll investigate.
If you're arrested for shooting up some place and they find out you put a collapsing stock on your rifle, they'll tack that charge onto the end, maybe. Even then though, it's unlikely because they'd have to file federally for that. "He killed 12 people, so we're charging him with 12 counts of murder. He will face 12 life sentences. Then, once he's done with that, they'll remand him to federal custody to face 1 count of illegally manufacturing an assault weapon, which carried a penalty of (whatever it is now)."
I don't know what the "legal" definition of "manufacture" happens to be defined as. If I can swap out a stock by hand, one would think, this would not fall under "manufacture" as it wasn't a process of raw goods nor did it take industrial machines to do. So it's a line of bullshit legal tape which would land in the hands of each individual judge or jury to define, unless there is precedence.
What is more interesting than all of this is whether or not this could prevent personal fire-arm creation which is already legal in the country. You don't have to register nor serialize self made weapons unless deemed locally as far as I know. So I wonder if they are going to tackle that "issue" as well.
Besides, firearms dealers are required, by law, to keep a list of all firearms with serial numbers and dispositions, for potential use in a gun trace.(b) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.—Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: "The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured or made, legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the weapon, and such other identification as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe.".
Though speaking about the Ruger Mini-14, I find it ridiculous that the standard Mini-14...
...is specifically exempted by name, while another version...
...is specifically banned by name, even though they're the same firearm, have the action, the same caliber, the same magazine options. I guess the pistol grip and adjustable stock are really dangerous. Heck, even the thumbhole version...
...would be banned as an "assault weapon".
Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2013-01-27 at 08:12 PM.
people that buy scary guns are gonna use those scary looking guns to kill women and children, didnt you hear? these crimes couldnt be committed with any other type of firearm except tactical looking ones..
the people changing the laws right now have no clue what theyre talking about when it comes to which guns they want to ban. apparently, its anything they think looks like it would belong in the next war movie. hell, they cant even use proper terminology to describe what theyre trying to get across half the time. if youre like me, and you know quite a bit about guns, its laughable to watch the nightly news and hear the newest bullshit coming in from washington. so many double standards. it feels like theyre intentionally trying to disarm america for some other purpose - but youll never hear that side of the coin on cnn will you?
hell the post above mine is a perfect example of the double standard and a perfect showcase of them not realizing the difference between two guns that have the same exact capabilities.
anyone visiting this post that would like a bit of education regarding "assault weapons", i really encourage you to visit this educational website. its very well done and it will only take you 5-10 minutes to educate yourself properly on the subject. if you think you have a valid opinion on the topic but have never even fired a gun, take a look -
What is the definition of an "assault rifle/weapon"? Someone please explain.
In 1994 (well, in California before that, but ignore Cali, they's all whackjobs out that way), the Federal Government of the USA assigned a definition to "semi-automatic assault weapons", which are certain handguns, rifles, shotguns which they decided were more than the common folk needed. The folks drafting the bills knew little about guns, so they used cosmetic features to judge if a gun was "similar to a military gun", thus banning guns with flash suppressors (designed to moderate the amount of flash when rifle rounds are fired), collapsing stocks (note federal limits already assign a designation of "short barreled rifle" and special licensing if it is too small) and other "mean features".
Since that law was a joke and did nothing except advertise the "lethality" of 'assault weapons", they've now decided that any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip is an assault weapon. Any handgun that has the magazine outside the pistol grip or has a threaded barrel is also an assault weapon. (So yeah, my two beretta's with threaded barrels, or any of the competition guns with threaded barrels to affix a compensator to reduce recoil, those are assault weapons.)
---------- Post added 2013-01-27 at 04:44 PM ----------
And of course, because normal gun makers base the number of rounds in the magazine off of the amount that will fit into the size of the grip, 15 rounds was the long time standard for Beretta 92's, SIG 226's, Ruger P89's, S&W 59 series, and any number of other guns out there. Somehow, having as many bullets as your gun holds is now "high capacity" if it holds more than 10.
I ask this question because most people have no idea what this term "assault weapon" even means.
They think it refers to a fully automatic weapon when in reality the government is referring to a semi automatic hunting rifle.