Opinion: Proposed AWB bans ALL guns with a grip

Yeah, that's not gonna fly.

I guess Feinstein's approach is to seem as crazy as possible, so that anything else will seem "reasonable" and "common sense" by comparison.

.

From the article...

“‘Pistol grip’ means … any … characteristic that can function as a grip.”

Click to expand...

Basically, the author interprets this as: if you can hold it (you have to grip it to hold it ), it's illegal.

If this passes (it wont) ... great news. Either this part will be thrown out by the courts (as being too vague or overly broad, thus banning all guns), or the whole thing will be thrown out.

rdhood said:

Either this part will be thrown out by the courts (as being too vague or overly broad, thus banning all guns), or the whole thing will be thrown out.

Click to expand...

Just keep in mind that at least four of the current Supreme Court justices would heartily approve of such a law--without a shred of doubt.

If I read it right, thumbhole stocks are "pistol grips." So My Mausers, and H&R Ultra-Slugger are both banned along with my daughter's 10/22 and my AR's. Yippie! I will be a felon soon! And my other daughter wants a thumbhole on her bolt guns, but is a lefty. A family crime syndicate for you!

That frankenstein needs to cool it, this is just getting more sickening by the day.

gdcpony said:

If I read it right, thumbhole stocks are "pistol grips." So My Mausers, and H&R Ultra-Slugger are both banned along with my daughter's 10/22 and my AR's. Yippie! I will be a felon soon! And my other daughter wants a thumbhole on her bolt guns, but is a lefty. A family crime syndicate for you!

Click to expand...

No need for interpretation. Thumbhole stocks are specifically banned in Feinstein's proposed bill.

gdcpony said:

If I read it right, thumbhole stocks are "pistol grips." So My Mausers, and H&R Ultra-Slugger are both banned along with my daughter's 10/22 and my AR's. Yippie! I will be a felon soon! And my other daughter wants a thumbhole on her bolt guns, but is a lefty. A family crime syndicate for you!

Click to expand...

Well, not exactly. The weapon has to be semi-automatic and have the naughty features. Manually operated or single-shot guns can have pistol grips, barrel shrouds,and all the other "bad" stuff. This is partly why during the last AWB why the pump-shotgun customizing took off. As long as it was on a pump you could add whatever you wanted.

My pistol has a pistol grip

All my old GI Joes have Kung-fu grips.

I'd have a hard time shooting accurately any gun without a grip, and so would anyone else. That's the sort of gun that should be banned.

col.lemat said:

My pistol has a pistol grip

Click to expand...

A pistol grip is only listed as a prohibited feature for a rifle, not a pistol.

I completely understand rallying against the legislation guys, but we need to be educated about what it actually says to look competent when we argue against it.

I guess Feinstein's approach is to seem as crazy as possible, so that anything else will seem "reasonable" and "common sense" by comparison.

Click to expand...

I suspect that you are a pretty good guesser.

mgmorden said:

A pistol grip is only listed as a prohibited feature for a rifle, not a pistol.

I completely understand rallying against the legislation guys, but we need to be educated about what it actually says to look competent when we argue against it.

Click to expand...

AMEN!!!

It is better to remain silent and be thought dumb than speak and remove all doubt.
I'm not saying you should not express your opinion because it is important to speak up. BUT when you THINK you know what a piece of legislation says ask your self "how do I KNOW that is what it says??" The devil is in the details. Our opposition wants to make us look like a bunch of backwards, ignorant rubes & wackos and will exploit any honest mistakes on our part toward that end.

Manco said:

Just keep in mind that at least four of the current Supreme Court justices would heartily approve of such a law--without a shred of doubt.

Click to expand...

Just keep in mind that they will never get the chance to vote on it again. (even if by some miracle it passed) SCOTUS does not hear cases on issues they have already settled. This would be struck down by lower courts and never heard from again. DOA.

Didn't these twit congress persons swear an oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution" ? Doesn't introducing laws like this stand as an act of treason?

Or at the very least a call for failure to uphold an oath of office?

:banghead:

yes. They should automatically lose the plush jobs they hold whenever they introduce such legislation .

Therefore Hughes Electric Chain Guns are completely OK if semi-auto only, one sot per push of the button...
Yes, it is meant to fail AND distract from the real objectives, such as separate magazine bans which will seem tame in comparison, and this years Holy Grail, the Universal Registrat...I mean Background Check...

Exactly as JFrame mentioned. The plan is to put up a law that has zero chance of seeing the light of day in the house. This allows the western state senate dems to vote against it to "show they support the 2nd amendment". Then they put in a law to ban high cap mags and most assault rifles and the western dems can claim they voted for it since it was the least obtrusive and most reasonable approach to gun control.

Wait a second guys, lets not get all wrapped around the axle on what is banned or who is a felon all of a sudden. I found an overlooked loophole in the Constitution, it says "Shall not be infringed", it seems our elected representatives missed this one, which can be the only reason why they are proposing such bat mess crazy legislation

I have to admit. After being bombarded with the proposed bans for the last month and a half, I just had a good laugh.
I'm already burned out on this stuff and then this comes out... Maybe I'm punch drunk from not getting enough sleep last night but... really? I mean... anything with a grip?

I love it. Comedy writers couldn't come up with material this good.

A common strategy in negotiating is to ask for things you really don't expect to get in order to use them as give aways during the negotiation. Starting with an extreme position is evidence of this strategy. This way you can be seen as giving "concessions" and bargaining in good faith when you are actually just giving up your throw aways. Subsequently, you opponent has public pressure to give something up in order to be perceived as bargaining in good faith.

A proper response to an absurd position in negotiating is to counter with something equally or more extreme. I would counter Feinstein's Bill with a repeal of GCA 1968 and NFA 1934 prior to the start of any real negotiations on her bill.

If it's any consolation,Feinstein's actions are her reaction to past Political Adgenda and hopes being squashed by the "Gun Culture" and their power at the Polling Places nationwide.
Congressional majorities have many times been decided by a candidates views on Gun Control.