Are lever actions safe?

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!

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.

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.

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.

the reason you see so many ARs/AKs etc on gun trading sites is because everyone is trying to cash in.

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....

ApacheCoTodd said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Take a look at the Henry.

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

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.

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.....

look up 30-30 cop killers

Click to expand...

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.

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.

"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

clang said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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...

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]

"...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

clang said:

"...Supreme Court cases to limit government power"
Just like the way they decided ObamaCare was constitutional?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.