Attention Potential Ban Profiteers: Hr1022 Sux!

[14427H]

03A3's?....how about this one.

there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes

The US Army procured 1894 Winchesters during WW1 to protect the timber industry, know as "spruce" rifles.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Well Pain and Washington are long gone ....

Alas, both pain and Washington are still with us and perhaps inextricably intertwined.

As Evan Price explains in this thread, Washington aims to cause gun owners great pain and undoubtedly will do so because most gun owners expect other people to carry them. There are more than 80 million gun owners and only about 4 million of them even belong to the NRA. Not even the lawyers in Heller v. DC are gun owners. Most gun owners want a free ride, and they're awfully critical if that ride isn't exactly to their liking.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if many gun owners vote for the Democratic Party's nominee, especially if it's Barack Obama. Then they'll complain bitterly about the NRA, the Republican Party, and everyone else for not saving them from this bill and others to come.

 

[Acera]

TexasRifleman, you are correct.

I don't wish the ban. I think it is a bad idea.

But I don't want to be left out in the dark when it happens!

Does anyone think that the prices will fall if nothing happens? Is anyone complaining about the dramatic and over inflated prices of guns today? What you buy today will probably never be cheaper.

I don't wish for this, but out of sound reason I feel it is coming.

I don't think that very many people on this board are anti 2nd. Many express their feeling in order to help others who might not understand their opinion on the future and firearms ownership in this country.

 

[Javelin]

Bullet taxation in the disguise of ID stamping is wrong. It is a few profiteers that see some money in it, legislators that see profit for special interests, and anti's that see another way to poke a stick in the eye of gun owners. No way in hell a criminal will be using stamped ammunition. If it was/were it wont be traced to them or the bullet will be removed cleaned and casing buffed smooth of any #ID.

The 1022 bill is another travesty and quite frankly has a good chance of being ammended a couple of times and signed in if the right person gets into Office as President. The House and Senate are primarily anti at this time anyway.

No one wants to see the cost of everything go up. If it boils down to turning anything in. I am sorry this man won't. Turn me in. I don't care. I won't be going down alone I can 100% assure you as I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and that also means the Ammendments. All of them.

*IF the day ever comes that I get a message from a moderator on some forum telling me that I need to stop talking about my illegal activity of owning an AR/Glock/Bushmaster/Beretta. Well then I will know I have lost and will be banned I guess. All of my rifles/pistols are staying with me. And so will my views on this.

So to you that maybe sitting like a rat on a wedge of cheese I emplore you to look around at the other rats you are associating with and think about what you are doing. I hope you choose the right path and financially help organizations such as the NRA, write those letters to your local/state legislators, and vote.

 

[glockman19]

IMHO this would be struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

 

[stellarpod]

IMHO this would be struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

Perhaps it would... BUT, IN HOW MANY YEARS?

It takes years, sometimes decades for cases to be heard by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the tyranny continues to be hoisted upon the public.

We can ill-afford to sit by idly and wait. Never in the history of our battle has it been so important that we communicate our views to our legislature and media, well articulated and with a compelling and UNITED voice.

This war will NEVER be over. We will NEVER be able to rest, thinking the job is complete. It will NEVER be complete and we must ALWAYS maintain our vigilance.

stellarpod

 

[antsi]

IMHO this would be struck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

I'd like to think you're right, but I'm not so sure.

Sometimes it can actually work the opposite way. The reasoning goes like this: "If the SCOTUS makes a principled ruling on this issue, it would threaten x, y, and z laws which are on the books and those laws are needed."

This kind of language is already being used in amicus briefs for Heller. "If you rule that the 2nd actually means something, you could be opening the door for out pet law to be stricken down."

I know this thought process is totally whacked. Essentially they are saying that the existence of one unconstitutional law should count in favor of upholding another unconstitutional law. I guess you have to go to law school to be able to understand these things.

 

[lacoochee]

Couldn't resist and this is tongue in cheek, really.

I know this thought process is totally whacked. Essentially they are saying that the existence of one unconstitutional law should count in favor of upholding another unconstitutional law. I guess you have to go to law school to be able to understand these things.

Well, we all know the first thing that happens in the revolution......

 

[rocinante]

So wrong not even worth depositing my two cents. What the SANE said.

 

[ThatsJon]

Soon they will come up with a bill banning TP. (toilet paper) a very expensive and wasteful item found in DC.

Sure hope they don't ban air fresheners or we won't be able to clear the stinky air that comes out of DC. And more then a few dozen politicians openings they try to hide by sitting down.

 

[ThatsJon]

Soon they will come up with a bill banning TP. (toilet paper) a very expensive and wasteful item found in DC.

Sure hope they don't ban air fresheners or we won't be able to clear the stinky air that comes out of DC. And more then a few dozen politicians openings they try to hide by sitting down.

What ever happened to the right to live peacefully and as we like?

If the courts have said police departments are not there to protect the public then who in hell is other then those of us that take seriously self protection?

 

[sonyhoppes]

Plain as day. Buy a bunch of preban EBRs and fullcap mags, you are STUCK WITH THEM. No profit for you. THINK ABOUT IT!

Although it may not be legal, I can sell as many mags as I want "under the table". They're not even serialized and can never be traced to the original owner. Just gotta watch out for the undercover types, but friends and family are still a go!

All this ban will accomplish is to FUEL a weapons black market.

 

[HK G3]

I'm just curious - whatever happened to the precedent set by the 1934 NFA Act?

If I'm not mistaken, I remember a ruling saying something along the lines of: if the weapon is not designed for the military, and shows no obvious use in military applications, then said weapon is solely the tool of the assassin or thief, and not protected by the second amendment.

By this logic, why is anyone allowed to try to ban any "military-style" weapon?

Again, I'm legitimately wondering what the legality behind this is.

This war will NEVER be over. We will NEVER be able to rest, thinking the job is complete. It will NEVER be complete and we must ALWAYS maintain our vigilance.

I'm sad to admit it, but you're right. After joining the community of gun owners, I realized exactly how vast and unyielding the assault on gun rights is in this country. It's depressing to think that no matter what, we're going to be fighting a losing battle for our rights as long as time can tell. And I say "losing battle" because it seems as if our rights are further eroded every 20 years or so - 1934 NFA act, 1968 GCA, 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, 1994 AWB, etc. Depressing.

 

[fearless leader]

Quote:
`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--



I see revolvers are going to be back in style again.

I wonder if gun companies will quit selling to governments the items they cannot sell to civilians. I don't believe I would sell to any US, State Gov't or Municipality Authority under those tyrannical rules!

Note how "Tubular devices attached are banned unless for a 22. Say good bye to your lever guns and pumps as well.

I noticed any handgun capable of taking a detachable mag is called for ban.

Gentlemen, when do we surround The Peoples Socialist Republic of Washington?

 

[Urbana John]

Looks like they "missed" the Beretta's Storms !!!!!!!

UJ

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

Note how "Tubular devices attached are banned unless for a 22. Say good bye to your lever guns and pumps as well.

`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

Read it again, and in any case most tube-fed center fire lever guns hold =<10 rounds of ammunition.

Even so, this is one insidious bill.

 

[fearless leader]

McCain voted for the AWB, Hillary and Obama definitely want the AWB.

We don't have many options here.

 

[fearless leader]

I didn't see a capacity limit on the tubular magazine, nor did I see a definition for "attached" but I did see they call for the ban of all detachable magazine fed handguns.<that's a period.

In a liberal's eyes, attached may be read to mean when the gun is made, for all I know. I'm not too keen on reading legaleeze.

 

[sonyhoppes]

Fearless Leader, you need to post the entire part. It says limiting detachable mags to 10 rounds, same as the 1994 AWB. The only semi-autos that will be banned outright are pistols that use mags inserted anywhere but the grip. So, stock up on your broom handle Mausers and PLR-16s.

`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a barrel shroud; or

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

 

[fearless leader]

Quote:
This war will NEVER be over. We will NEVER be able to rest, thinking the job is complete. It will NEVER be complete and we must ALWAYS maintain our vigilance.

The only way I know to do it once and for all is something that would be deleted.

 

[sonyhoppes]

I didn't see a capacity limit on the tubular magazine, nor did I see a definition for "attached" but I did see they call for the ban of all detachable magazine fed handguns.

Actually, I stand corrected. There is NO ban on any "normal" grip/mag semi-autos. The 10 round limit ONLY applies to pistols with fixed magazines which is good because there aren't too many of those around. These are the banned pistols as per below. Also banned are pistols with a second (fore) grip, threaded barrels and barrel shrouds. You know, the "thing that goes up."

`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

 

[fearless leader]

Thanks Sonyhoppes, I did miss that. I feel a wee bit better now. As I read this thing, my laptop is near the window I am watching out of while the Florida sun attempts to burn out my retinas.

It's hard to read, at best.

 

[sonyhoppes]

No problemo. Glad to ease your fears. I'm looking out the window at 6+ inches of snow up here in New England!

Even though this ban still sucks, it's marginally better than the 1994 AWB regarding pistols because there isn't a 10 round limit for "normal" pistols.

 

[paintballdude902]

i wish old bill ruger was alive to see the bill he supported banning his own gun

 

[asknight]

OMGWTFBBQ said:

Read it again, and in any case most tube-fed center fire lever guns hold =<10 rounds of ammunition.

Since when is a levergun a semiautomatic? Or am I misunderstanding you? Because it sounds like you're alluding to the notion that leverguns would be banned under this clause as well.