Are lever actions safe?


PDA






inkinskin
January 31, 2013, 01:06 PM
I am a proud owner of a few semi auto rifles in a few different calibers. I mainly just target shoot or hunt the unwanted critters in my back yard. My question is, will the good ol lever action rifles be safe if evil Feinstein gets her way? I ask because I spend alot of time on gun trading sites like armslist and I am seeing tons of AR's, AK's, SKS's, Mini 14's, But hardly do I see a Model 94 or anything close to. Are the owners of these holding onto them because of this reason? I used to shoot my grandfather's model 94 when I was a kid and it taught me the best fundamentals of shooting a rifle, so I have been thinking of picking one up if they are still around. What would a decent price for one be? Also what is the normal caliber & ammo availability for these types of rifles?

Any knowledge would be appreciated.

Thanks guys,

If you enjoyed reading about "Are lever actions safe?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TIMC
January 31, 2013, 01:14 PM
If the gun grabbers get their way then nothing will be safe. This is because it will not solve the problem and they will want more and more until we are like the UK with none!

BP Hunter
January 31, 2013, 01:18 PM
The lever action rifles to many are considered old style and have been less popular compared to the more modern firearms we see nowadays. The calibers use like the famous 30-30 have been greatly "outgunned" by the more modern cartridge. So you don't see too many of these rifles among modern hunters.

I have a Marlin 336 in stainless steel in 30-30 and it happens to be my favorite long gun. I am very accurate with it up to 200 yards hitting milk cartons consistently with iron sights. I enjoy its redundant safety with the hammer and side safety button which make this gun quite safe to handle.

brnmw
January 31, 2013, 01:23 PM
I believe they will be safe for a time, I do agree with TIMC that eventually the "Anti's" will not be satisfied with banning semi-auto's only. As for typical calibers most are chambered for .30-30 Win.,.22 LR, .45 LC, .357 Mag., and .44 Mag., .45-70 Gov't all of which are usually easy ammo to find and will be again once the ammo hoarding stops. There are other calibers available to shoot from a lever gun but these are your typical calibers.

ApacheCoTodd
January 31, 2013, 01:48 PM
Always gonna be a matter of capacity for some. At least one Henry is on the CAWB due to holding more than 10 rounds. Some day, they may pick 7 or 5 or 2 or whatever to widen the net.

adelbridge
January 31, 2013, 01:55 PM
the reason you see so many ARs/AKs etc on gun trading sites is because everyone is trying to cash in.

RPRNY
January 31, 2013, 02:09 PM
Ye Olde 30-30, that much maligned cartridge by those who worship at the altar of velocity is ballistically superior to the 7.62x39 round that so many seem enamored of today. Not by much, but still. It will serve 98% of hunters needs in the contiguous 48 states, and Hawaii for that matter, as at least 98% of people have no business shooting at wildlife over 150 yards away. Now, the 2% is overrepresented on this Board (and the Internet in general) at least in their own opinion, so there will be a hue and cry against this statement.

7-30 357 Mag, 44 Mag, 45 LC, 454 Casull (questionable in my view) 348,356, 38-55, 375, 405 45-70 and a number I will have missed - not to mention the older 303 Savage, 300 Savage and everything from 220 Swift to 30-06 in the Savage 99 and BLR - all available in lever action, in addition to the beloved .22lr.

Those who despise the populace keeping and bearing arms will be after these rifles eventually. We shall see whether the foolish/selfish folks who do not stand up against efforts to ban EBRs have grown a spine by then....

firesky101
January 31, 2013, 02:17 PM
Always gonna be a matter of capacity for some. At least one Henry is on the CAWB due to holding more than 10 rounds. Some day, they may pick 7 or 5 or 2 or whatever to widen the net.
We have a specific exemption for a lever action with a tube fed mag, so there is no banned lever action henry at least not here in CA. Don't count on the antis letting that slide again though.

bigfatdave
January 31, 2013, 02:37 PM
Were 10-round magazines "safe" in New York in 2012? How about pre-AWB mags?

Stop farting around figuring out how to work around these "laws" and hammer your congressthings until they never allow such nonsense to be spoken in the chambers of congress again.

OhioChief
January 31, 2013, 03:42 PM
Take a look at the Henry.

Cosmoline
January 31, 2013, 03:47 PM
Nothing is "safe" if they get their way. High capacity rifles go back to the earliest repeaters of the 1860's. Barrel shrouded semiautos go back to the Remington Autos 110 years ago. Indeed those evil high cap semiautos were used for hunting and law enforcement before any military adopted them.

http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/?page_id=659

joeschmoe
January 31, 2013, 04:09 PM
AR's are just as "safe" as lever's. Neither will be banned. Feinstein is barking at the moon. She will not get her way.

Write your congressman and don't vote for any gun grabbers.

Shadow 7D
January 31, 2013, 04:11 PM
NO
they are NOT
look up 30-30 cop killers
they are NOT safe, no gun is safe, got a bolt action
High powered military sniper rifle.....

SlamFire1
January 31, 2013, 04:23 PM
look up 30-30 cop killers

You are right! I did look it up and those paranoid Gun Banners call the 30-30 a Cop Killer round.

Gun banners are into incremental gun bans. The lever actions will go before single shots, but they will go be banned.

joeschmoe
January 31, 2013, 04:29 PM
No. They will not be banned. Stop acting like chickenlittle. The sky is not falling. Learn your rights and the limits of government power.
Read the SCOTUS cases Miller, Heller and McDonald.

clang
January 31, 2013, 04:38 PM
"No. They will not be banned. Stop acting like chickenlittle. The sky is not falling. Learn your rights and the limits of government power."

I believe there were many who thought the same thing in 1930s Germany

joeschmoe
January 31, 2013, 04:43 PM
I believe there were many who thought the same thing in 1930s Germany

Too bad for them they didn't have a Republican Constitution, BoR's and recent Supreme Court cases to limit government power.

We do.

The sky is not falling.

Maj Dad
January 31, 2013, 04:57 PM
I believe there were many who thought the same thing in 1930s Germany
This is a commonly seen & heard statement but it isn't true. Hitler & the Nazis actually made it easier for the Germans to own weapons with the exception of the Jews, who were denied the right (along with everything else). This is from Wiki, but there are a host of references available. All things considered, they would have been better off with the 1928 laws and no Hitler... :scrutiny:

The 1938 German Weapons Act
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." But under the new law:
- Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[4]
- The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
- Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5]
- The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]
- Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[4]

clang
January 31, 2013, 04:58 PM
"...Supreme Court cases to limit government power"
Just like the way they decided ObamaCare was constitutional?

What's going to happen after Obama gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justice?

Remember what Diane Feinstain said during the last gun ban: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate ... Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them ALL in."

Wake up and smell the coffee. It stinks right now

joeschmoe
January 31, 2013, 05:11 PM
"...Supreme Court cases to limit government power"
Just like the way they decided ObamaCare was constitutional?
So you haven't read any of those cases I mentioned right? The court has already ruled in our favor. It's law.
What's going to happen after Obama gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justice?Nothing. All 9 justices said the 2nd is a fundamental right. They are bound by precedent, look up "Stare decisis" (after you read Heller v DC).

Remember what Diane Feinstain said during the last gun ban: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate ... Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them ALL in."She can stand on a table and wave her panties in the air for all I care. She can't exceed her power. It's a big government, and she doesn't control it. Learn how your government works.

Wake up and smell the coffee. It stinks right now

Stop smelling the glove feinstein pushes infront of you. Her bill is DOA. Even if Congress passed it, which they won't, it would be struck down by any federal court in the land. Read Heller and McDonald cases. The law and Constitution are on our side. Not hers.

The sky is not falling.

mbt2001
January 31, 2013, 05:35 PM
Lever actions are less likely to end up on a ban list, that being said it is a gun so it isn't "safe" or "safe" but it is as "safe" as a gun can be, and if handled properly it is as "safe" as any other gun out there.

Roadking Rider
January 31, 2013, 05:42 PM
Stearing clear of all the politicasl BS that is going around these days I'll just say this.

If most lever action rifle owners are like myself and also own Semi auto rifles we might have a tendency to shoot the semi's more often. The semi auto carbines like the SKS the 762 x39 ammo is cheaper than 30/30 ammo. Plus it is about same power. So in my case I shoot the SKS more than I do the 30/30. As far as my 1981 336 Marlin goes it's a rifle I will never sell reguardless of what happens with this latest AWB BS. I believe a Lever action rifle might not be every owners favorite SHTF rifle but there not to eager to part with them either. They are just a great reliable design that has been around forever. They are also a nice change of pace to shoot that brings out that little bit of cowboy in all of us. I can't help but think of the movie Lonesome Dove or some other old western movie everytime a look at it. I'm not sure what your asking as far as safe. I'd say there as safe and maybe more so then any other rifle out there. If safe means are they a safe and good buy? Then I'd say yes. To be honest and I mean this, I can't imagine having a rifle collection and not having at least one or two Lever actions. I'm always looking for a good deal on another one.
178785

clang
January 31, 2013, 06:05 PM
"All 9 justices said the 2nd is a fundamental right."

And you really believe they were all being honest? You really think Ginsberg, Kagen and Sotomayer believe you have a fundamental right to own guns?

Lever Actions may be lower on the list, but all gun ownership is in jeapordy. They will whittle down the list until all we are left with are single shot shotguns, and then they'll figure out how to limit who get's to own one of them too.

RPRNY
January 31, 2013, 06:20 PM
Joe - this probably isn't the right forum for the discussion and 9 times out of 10 I am on your side of this discussion because most of what you have said is correct. However, a change in the Supreme Court's make-up will indeed allow for new interpretations of what the Second Amendment protects and does not protect. And while you are mostly correct in saying that future courts will be bound by the precedents that you cite, the fact is that there is no realistic appeal of a Supreme Court decision, so a future Court dominated by Liberal appointees may well circumvent Heller, McDonald and other cases that you reference. Don't forget that in these cases, the Court appeared to have broken with previous precedent (Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894) http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/miller_v_texas.txt ) in which the Court appeared to suggest that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States/State Law, or http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/presser.txt Presser vs Illinois (1896) in which the Court seemingly overturned earlier precedent regarding the relationship of the Second Amendment to those in a "militia".

The point being, let us not forget another populist demagogue President, Andrew Jackson, and his response to the Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). Of the decision, Jackson said "Mr Marshall [Chief Justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it". The Court was unable to do so.

So, don't rely on the Court or the sanctity of the law. If the Left is able to make gun ownership less socially acceptable, and that is their agenda with terms like "assault weapon", "high capacity assault magazines" and "weapons of war", they can run whatever they want through Congress and you will obey or go to jail. There may or may not be a Court ruling later and it may or may not matter.

I have no interest in these EBRs, ARs or AKs, and find them a little puerile and a lot stupid, but I will defend with my utmost the legitimate right of my fellow citizen to keep and bear stupid and puerile arms that he may defend me when the Left comes after my much more refined and mature arms. :cuss: ;)

joeschmoe
January 31, 2013, 06:41 PM
Any issue that has already been decided by SCOTUS can be struck down by any federal court. Everyone assumes, incorrectly, that any 2nd case must be ruled by SCOTUS. No. The issues of "common use", "fundamental rights", "self defense", incorporation, etc have already been spelled out by SCOTUS for any federal court to enforce. So a change in the SCOTUS is moot.
Lower courts have all the guidence they need. It will never get back to SCOTUS on the same issues. New issues maybe, but not already settled ones.
These issues are settled. There's plenty of room for disagreement in the grey areas they did not speak to, but SCOTUS does not re-argue issues they have already settled. That is what they expect the lower courts to enforce.
Clang, and others, are acting like this is all up in the air, "doom and gloom for sure".
No, the sky is not falling. We have already won on these points, we are not going to go back and re-fight them. That's what the anti's want, because they lost. We won.

Feinstein is grasping at straws. Let her drown in her own vitriol.

joeschmoe
January 31, 2013, 07:11 PM
Joe - this probably isn't the right forum for the discussion and 9 times out of 10 I am on your side of this discussion because most of what you have said is correct. However, a change in the Supreme Court's make-up will indeed allow for new interpretations of what the Second Amendment protects and does not protect. And while you are mostly correct in saying that future courts will be bound by the precedents that you cite, the fact is that there is no realistic appeal of a Supreme Court decision, so a future Court dominated by Liberal appointees may well circumvent Heller, McDonald and other cases that you reference.
Yes there is. Althought the SCOTUS is not in the habit of reversing itself, if a change did occur, then it could change again with newer justices. If it's not written in stone now, then another temporary change would also be temporary once we appoint more justices. That see-saw is exactly why SCOTUS does not like to bounce back and forth. We always have the ballot box, jury box, and ammo box if that doesn't work. Don't forget that in these cases, the Court appeared to have broken with previous precedent (Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894) http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/miller_v_texas.txt ) in which the Court appeared to suggest that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States/State Law, or http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/presser.txt Presser vs Illinois (1896) in which the Court seemingly overturned earlier precedent regarding the relationship of the Second Amendment to those in a "militia".Those issues were addressed in Heller/McDonald. The 2nd is now and forever more a "fundamental right", "incorporated under the 14th amendment" and applies "strict scrutiny". There is no grey there. That is forever more. We won.
]

The point being, let us not forget another populist demagogue President, Andrew Jackson, and his response to the Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). Of the decision, Jackson said "Mr Marshall [Chief Justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it". The Court was unable to do so.
That was before the 14th amendment was written, but now it's incorporated to all the states as a fundamental right. Say it with me... "Heller/McDonald ruled the 2nd is a fundamental right applying to the states under the 14th amendment requiring strict scrutiny".

So, don't rely on the Court or the sanctity of the law. If the Left is able to make gun ownership less socially acceptable, and that is their agenda with terms like "assault weapon", "high capacity assault magazines" and "weapons of war", they can run whatever they want through Congress and you will obey or go to jail. There may or may not be a Court ruling later and it may or may not matter.
We already won. The SCOTUS has already ruled in our favor.

I have no interest in these EBRs, ARs or AKs, and find them a little puerile and a lot stupid, but I will defend with my utmost the legitimate right of my fellow citizen to keep and bear stupid and puerile arms that he may defend me when the Left comes after my much more refined and mature arms. :cuss: ;)

Just remember only ARMS are protected. Your old geezer hunting and sport guns are not protected by the 2nd and CAN be banned, confiscated and burnt in a pile in the town square, so I suggest you get yourself an AR15 to defend your old geezer guns. ;)

RPRNY
January 31, 2013, 07:48 PM
Well Joe, I guess you're in a happy little smug place. Having been a lobbyist for over twenty years I will tell you authoritatively that no law written in any medium is forever and nobody is completed protected by the law. So, when they come for you and your guns, you can show them your post and tell them all about Heller and McDonald being written in stone. And I wish you good luck with that.

Given what Cuomo and his lap-dog state legislature just passed in NY, I do not share your confidence.

In the mean time, constant vigilance, a vocal and spirited offense against those who do not share your sense that further "gun control" is hopeless, and a healthy contempt for the sanctity of the law will guide my approach to the issue.

readyeddy
January 31, 2013, 08:19 PM
Thanks to Joe I now have a vision of her waving her panties in the air. My suffering knows no bounds.

joeschmoe
January 31, 2013, 08:25 PM
I just won't panic about it becasue I know my rights and I've read the case law. If the gun grabbers and chickenlittles want to get silly and start claiming the sky is falling, that's fine, but I know it's not.
No one is comming for our guns. I went thru the last so called "AWB", that was before Heller/McDonald. Now we are stronger.

I put a lot more stock into what the Supreme Court says than what Feinstein says. Apparently the chickenlittles think what she says is more important. It's not.

... and when the NY law is struck down by the first federal court that hears it you can come back here and tell us that I was right and you were wrong.

BTW, stop voting for gun grabbing NY politicians. That would help too.

inkinskin
January 31, 2013, 09:09 PM
Thanks for the help guys. I think I am going to pick one up for my collection now. I am probably going to go with the classic 30-30 caliber. I am leaning towards a Winchester or a Marlin. If anyone had any other suggestions toward brands, please let me know.

Thanks again guys.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Driftwood Johnson
January 31, 2013, 11:15 PM
Howdy

Without getting into the politics of it, I can give you some information about lever guns, I own several.

Generally speaking, lever guns are divided into two different types, the ones that chamber 'pistol' cartridges, and the ones that chamber 'rifle' cartridges. 'Pistol' cartridges simply means cartridges that were short enough to be chambered in a revolver cylinder. The first lever guns fired these relatively short cartridges.

The first successful lever gun was the 1860 Henry rifle, which chambered the 44 Henry Rimfire cartridge. The Henry was made by the New Haven Arms Company. In 1866, the principal investor in the New Haven Arms company changed the name of the company to the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, bringing out the first true Winchester, the model 1866. This rifle also chambered the 44 Henry cartridge. The 44 Henry Cartridge was also chambered in some of the conversion revolvers of the day.

In 1873 Winchester brought out the Model 1873 and unveiled the 44-40 cartridge with it. This cartridge was also known as the 44 Winchester Center Fire (44WCF). The Model 1873 was eventually chambered for 44-40, 38-40, 32-20, and 22 Rimfire. The last of the 'pistol cartridge' Winchesters was the Model 1892, designed by John Browning. The '92 was chambered for 44-40, 38-40, 32-20 and 25-20. The '92 was a much stronger rifle than any of the earlier toggle link rifles.

In 1876 Winchester introduced the Model 1876. It was basically a stretched version of the Model 1873, designed for larger, more powerful cartridges than the 'pistol caliber' guns. The Model 1876 was chambered for 45-75, 40-60, 45-60, and 50-95 Express. These were powerful Black Powder cartridges, much to large and powerful to be chambered in a revolver.

In 1886 Winchester brought out the Model 1886, which was chambered for the 45-70 Government cartridge. The Model 1886 was also designed by John Browning, and like the '92, it was much stronger than the toggle link Model 1876. The 1886 was eventually also chambered for the 45-90 and the 50-110 Express. These were very powerful cartridges.

The Winchester Model 1894 was developed along with the 30-30 cartridge (30WCF). 30-30 was the first commercial Smokeless cartridge. The Model 1894 is also a very strong action.

Marlin also produced lever guns, the Model 1894 was chambered for 44-40 as well as 38-40, 32-20, and 25-20. The Marlin Model 1893 was the precursor of the modern 336 Marlin, chambered for rifle cartridges. The Model 1895 Marlin is also chambered for rifle cartridges such as 38-55 and 45-70.

Modern reproductions of the 1860 Henry, the Winchester Model 1866 and the Winchester Model 1873 are produced today by Uberti in Italy. They are chambered for a variety of 'pistol cartridges' including 45 Colt, 44-40, 38-40, 357 Magnum and 38 Special. Model 1892 replicas are made by a couple of companies today, and are chambered for a variety of 'pistol cartridges'; 45 Colt, 44-40, 38-40, 357 Magnum and the more powerful 44 Magnum and 454 Casull. The longer action Model 1894 Winchester has been adapted to 45 Colt, but frankly, they tend to be problematic. The longer action does not always feed the shorter cartridges well.

Marlin has had trouble with their Model 1894 production since moving to the Remington plant in Ilion NY. The last I heard, 1894 production was still shut down while they ironed out the bugs. But there are plenty of older Marlin 1894s out there, made in New Haven before the move.

There are always plenty of used Winchester 94s on the gun racks. Try to find one that was made before 1964 if you can. I just picked up one that was made in 1943. A real nice shooter.

gunsandreligion
January 31, 2013, 11:54 PM
as at least 98% of people have no business shooting at wildlife over 150 yards away. after all the hunting videos of people shaking like a leaf from exitement, all the people I know who think they have the ability to shoot 350yds because they shot 3 shots at 200, all the people who gut shoot, miss, and have to track for a mile, I have finally met someone who undertands the importance of a good shot. My belief has been if you cant know your going for a DRT or have the animal run less than 50yds, dont take the shot. Most people act as if a lever is a beginners gun because its relatively short range, when they themselves regularily have to blame twigs, sticks, and grass for their exited misses/wounding. I cant agree more that 98% should never try for shots longer than 150, and I personaly am in that 98%.

CarolinaChuck
February 1, 2013, 01:00 AM
Ink,

Since Winchester stopped manufacturing their model 94 lever action rifles they have become pretty scarce on the market as most who have them think they will never be seen in production again; and that may be true. As others have suggested, the 1894 design is old and has gone through many iterations starting in 1895, and newer designs/manufacturing have really outdated and out paced the original model 1894 in the market place. 7 1/2 million model 94 rifles were made.

My brother in law has a pre 64, (I can not remember what year, but it may have been 80 years old then) cambered in 30-30 win that was handed down to him. He pestered me to death to give it a complete inspection and cleaning before he would shoot it. They are truly a piece of work and very well built. There was no doubt in my mind, or his either after the fact, that it would have lasted another 100 years before it needed to come apart like that. This would have been in 91 or 92.

I have no clue why Winchester stopped making them. Don't know if it was the design ran its course, manufacturing time, loss of market share or a combination of all of the above. I do feel it was a mistake on their part. "Lever guns" are solid, and even the post 64 model 94 Winchester rifles are worth what they bare in the market.

I have borrowed that rifle a few times hunting, but have never had an opportunity to take a deer with it. They will push a little over 150 yards, but I would pass on anything near 200. This rifle is fitted with a Williams rear peep sight, and I much prefer a good 1/2 buckhorn in that caliber. You can hit things out further, but it is like shooting a rainbow.

My mom grew up in Denver CO living with her mother during the school months. During the summer months they would travel to Yellowstone and stay with my grandfather, who was a civil engineer building roads in the North West and up into Canada.

My parents house was a gathering place for people all my life. We had a pool in the backyard and there was never a clue who you would find at the house when you got home. Even growing up, you never knew who you would find at the breakfast table when you got up; or later in life, who is there stopping by in the evening to pull a cork with my pops.

I never quite understood why my parents were never phased or questioned me about all of us who came around their house with all our firearms. I just figured it was because I was a Marine, and they just accepted the fact we played with firearms. It is what we did.

I cleaned off the kithcen table at the folks house and Lee, my brother in law, brought the Win 94 over. My mother walked into the kitchen and saw what we were messing with and said, "Oh, your granddad had one of those, he kept it over the front door and never left the cabin without it; kind of like you and I would do with a coat..." At age 31 I realized why my mother and father had never told me, or anyone, to be careful when they walked out the door of their house with a firearm. My mother had no fear of them.

I never saw my mother shoot a firearm; to the best of my knowledge she may never have. This is the problem we have today. When I grew up, walking in or out of the house with a firearm, it was no different than holding a screwdriver or a skateboard. If she wanted to know anything, it was where I was going and when I was coming back. The same with my friends.

Fearing firearms, or what ever is going to happen will eat you people up. Please, please... stop with all the anti gun BS and stop worrying. If everone with a Win. 94 has a box of 50 rounds, times 7 1/2 millon working rifles; that is more than one round for every man, woman and child in the United States...

CarolinaChuck

A side note: My mom passed away from cancer at home. She was a beloved and gracious women, who was both loved and feared in the community. All good tails are rooted in truth, but only a few have happy endings; and my mom would have never feared this one...

bearfoot
February 1, 2013, 01:23 PM
Ok, this discussion brings up a question I've had for the last few weeks, regarding the new NYS ban which has, iirc, no provision for grandfathering. Since it is clearly unconstitutional, doesn't it only require a legal challenge/lawsuit to get it struck down?
Similarly, Will any of DiFi's bill be allowed to take effect if it passes? (which it probably won't)
Also, since the "assault weapon" definition is already changing (one feature instead of two, 7 rounds instead of 10) can it be legally viable at all?


ok, so more than one question ... :cool:

joeschmoe
February 1, 2013, 01:49 PM
Dr. Randy Barnett, prominent law professor:


Quote:
So, when considering the constitutionality of bans on so-called military-style assault weapons, or restrictions on the capacity of magazines, senators should begin by asking whether the weapons being banned are in common use by civilians. When it comes to so-called assault weapons, like the AR-15, or 30-round magazines, the answer is clearly “yes.” Millions of such weapons and magazines are in private hands.

That should settle the matter, but senators can go a step further and ask whether these or other measures are actually rational — to articulate the end they are seeking to accomplish, then assesses whether the means adopted actually match up with the purported end. Would they actually have prevented a mass shooting or ameliorated real crimes?

This heightened “rationality review” could help ensure that the reason being articulated is the real reason for the law.

For example, “assault weapons” are a made-up category of weapons that is based solely on cosmetic features that make them look like the fully automatic weapons used by the military. Banning them leaves other rifles that are functionally identical in their lethality and rate of fire completely legal. Moreover, far more powerful hunting rifles are left untouched by the law, as are shotguns. This is simply irrational and therefore unconstitutional.

The same can be said for New York’s law limiting handguns to seven rounds, while allowing both active and retired police officers to keep their handguns that hold up to 15 rounds. If retired cops need 15 rounds to effectively protect themselves and others, then so do other citizens. Arbitrarily discriminating among Americans in this way is irrational and unconstitutional.

HoosierQ
February 1, 2013, 02:55 PM
Not if you're a member of the 7th Cavalry, it's 1876, and George Armstrong Custer is leading you in battle!

clang
February 1, 2013, 05:55 PM
If you believe the people who want to ban guns are rational and obey the Constitution, you are as mistaken as they are.

It doesn't take a panicking "chicken little" to realize that.

RPRNY
February 1, 2013, 07:38 PM
Joe

We have a Commander -in - Chief that draws up weekly death lists for his undeclared drone war, a President who has declared that US citizens that he feels are at war with the State can be executed without trial (and has done so) and an Administration that ordered gun dealers in the southwest to violate the law by selling weapons to straw buyers for the Mexican drug cartels so that they could "build a case " for stricter gun control. The Constitution clearly is not of relevance to the current regime. In their own words "what difference does it make? "

Driftwood Johnson
February 2, 2013, 02:29 AM
Since Winchester stopped manufacturing their model 94 lever action rifles they have become pretty scarce on the market as most who have them think they will never be seen in production again;

Howdy Again

I don't know why you think they are scarce, there are always plenty of used 94s on the used gun racks in these parts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are lever actions safe?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!