If no Grandfather Clause. Are you giving up your AK/ARs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Javelin

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
1,042
Location
DFW
It seems as though we may lose this upcoming election to the liberals. So what does this mean to the up and coming gun bill(s) have a good chance of being passed without much trouble from the Democrates? This clearly states that all assault firearms will be made illegal and no mention of a grandfather clause, and with a Dem controlled government it probably wont be ammended as such before passing.

Banned Firearms are all of those that (2) or more of the following;

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

More importantly it expands the list of rifles banned specifically by name.
Bans possession of conversion kits. Transfer of grandfathered weapons would have to go through a FFL and bans transfers of grandfathered semi-automatics with regular capacity magazines.

So if this passes does this mean we turn in our AR's/AK/FAL action-type firearms to the local police department? Maybe a "no look" donation drive with tents set up in Wal-Mart parking lots where we exchange our *evil now illegal* guns for a McDonald's gift certificate?

I am personally floored by this suggestion and will be in trauma over giving up firearms as I do follow the law. I would like to know how the THR community feels about this subject.
 
I am more surprise that you think the liberals are the only problem. I think the chances are America will lose no matter who gets elected this time around. If they don't take your guns they will take something else. ...and by "they", I mean both parties.
 
I will not give my rifles up, ever. They will not be able to find them if they have to break the door down to search. If the law says I am now criminal for what I have owned legally in the past, then so be it. This is how I stand up for myself, and I will not let the weak and unjust take that from me.
 
Javelin:

Where did you get the text for that 'bill'?

Are you just hypothesizing?

IIRC, the AWB passed in 94 while we had donkey control of the presidency and both houses. They grandfathered then.

Stop and ask yourself - why would they? Remember that they did in spite of having control.

I also find it interesting that you'd bait folks into declaring whether or not they would resist Hillary.
 
I thought so too but it does not say anything about us keeping the firearms that have "2 illegal modifications". And almost any AR-15 has at least 3 or 4 illegal mods as even the forearm grips are considered "heat shields". Most of these mods just being "clones of assault rifles" makes AR's, AK's, and FAL all illegal by default.

Lets face it this bill is completely full of liberal added loopholes and leaves no restriction on interpretation for more banning once it is imposed and the gun turn-in lines commence.

Just really scary.


The verbiage I included was from the Brady Bill of 94. I was dabbling on the Brady website today looking to see what the other camp was up to under their current legislation links.
 
Vote Ron Paul in 2008 if you want someone who wants to follow the Constitiution.
 
I thought so too but it does not say anything about us keeping the firearms that have "2 illegal modifications". And almost any AR-15 has at least 3 or 4 illegal mods as even the forearm grips are considered "heat shields". Most of these mods just being "clones of assault rifles" makes AR's, AK's, and FAL all illegal by default.
Click to expand...

That bill did say something to the tune of anything produced after so and so date.
 
Would this ban apply to AR recievers only? The reciever is the firearm IIRC but if it hase no parts on it then is it considered to have those bad features?

Bob
 
Javelin, you still didn't answer my question. Here you go:

IIRC, the AWB passed in 94 while we had donkey control of the presidency and both houses. They grandfathered then.

Stop and ask yourself - why would they? Remember that they did in spite of having control.
Click to expand...

Remember that Brady is not Congress. They couldn't get an outright ban back in 94 from a Democrat controlled .gov. Congress' approval rating is dismal right now. Do you really think they's try and turn millions of people into overnight felons this early in the game, especially when their team is getting their asses handed to them?

No, they need to add taxes to ammo and other incremental things like that. Drive wedges into the gun culture, deeper ones than exist now. A little here and a little there. Even Carolyn MCarthy isn't so stupid as to actually try a true ban just yet. Oh, she may want it, but she knows that it's not a good idea.

Yet.
 
I am personally floored by this suggestion and will be in trauma over giving up firearms as I do follow the law.
Click to expand...

So...if a law was passed that said you had to show up at a particular place and time to have your arms removed...you'd show up?

And yes, I mean that both ways.

Nio
 
A little research can eliminate a lot of worrying.

H. R. 1022
SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.
(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.
Click to expand...

S. 2237
SEC. 6202. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007.
Click to expand...
 
In this country I always thought it was the test of civil obedience to try and take a right away from the people.
It didn't work with prohibition and the alcohol ban only increased the amount of organized crime who provided services at the expense of needless and untimely deaths of many individuals.
I would hope that any government empowered in this country hasn't forgotton that simple lesson of the will of the people!
 
I wouldn't worry about a ban as much as an expansion of the list of 'prohibited persons'. Keep in mind they wanted to add the 'No Fly' list to the list of prohibited person, and the state of CA just added some 200,000 names to that list. Note that this can be done administratively or by executive order, probably to 'keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists'.
 
Whatever the outcome of the presidential election, these concerns are largely irrelevant - even with Hillary.

The proposed AW bills are just feel-goods for the libs to act like they're doing something - and they're even worse than the 1994 AW ban, which reduces their viability further.

The Congressional/senate pro-vs-anti skew has actually improved a tad in the 2006 election. This balance is unlikely to change much in the next coupla years.

It doesn't mean we should ignore things, but there are other things to worry about, often at state/local levels.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
Note that this can be done administratively or by executive order, probably to 'keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists'.
Click to expand...

People who are already prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 922 can be added to the list via administrative decision; but I am not aware of any statutory authority for an administrative agency or the President to add new categories of people to the list. Do you have a cite for that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
New Yorkers: Sign Senator Marchione's petition to repeal the NY AWB!
Replies
5
Views
734
sota
S
T
  • Locked
Lets support a complete BAN on the 2nd Amendment
Replies
12
Views
715
DigitalWarrior
D
7
  • Locked
H.R. 1312-Assault weapon ban- McCarthy
Replies
17
Views
673
ckyllo
C
D
  • Locked
The Democrats are at it again!!
Replies
17
Views
1K
walking arsenal
W
J
  • Locked
AWB H.R. 1022: FIND REPS HERE INFO
Replies
1
Views
347
Jimmypop97
J
Back
Top