1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Proposed Gun Ban List

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Doc S, Jan 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Doc S

    Doc S Member

    Sep 2, 2005
    San Antonio, Texas
    Democrats' proposed gun ban list revealed

    By Alan Korwin

    Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Bradys plan to introduce shortly.

    I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity, I'm working on getting that news out asap after these ban lists, probably be ready in the next few days. It's horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals.

    Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

    The Democrats' current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
    Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

    M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1;

    AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

    Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

    Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

    Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

    Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

    Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

    Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

    Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

    A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

    Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).

    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) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

    A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

    Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

    Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

    Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General." Note that Obama's pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

    In making this determination, the bill says, "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, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

    In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

    That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.

    The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

    If these near-total bans aren't enough, the most dangerous part may be the phrase "pistol grip" because: "The term 'pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." In other words, any semi-auto long gun with a grip (that's ALL semi-auto long guns) would be banned under the existing proposal. It's not clear what they hope to achieve by deceptively banning guns with grips instead of just calling to ban the guns -- even an idjit can tell it's the same thing.

    I didn't cover here all the magazine bans, transfer bans, dealer record-keeping and centralized reporting, and a host of nuisance details -- there will be time enough for that when the new lists are released soon: "As soon as President-elect Obama is inaugurated and the 111th Congress is sworn in," according to Ms. Brady. Congress is set to be sworn in on Jan. 6, Inauguration Day is Jan. 20.

    No one expects the new proposal to be less abusive than the current one supported by the party of the Democrats. Remember -- these bans were proposed when the congressional anti-rights crowd had no chance of success. Now they are ready to run wild, or according to Sarah herself, "I have never been so confident." The "news" media has failed to report on any of this, preferring instead to blare that the incoming president supports the Second Amendment and commonsense (sic) laws.

    To see the whole bill, go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search for HR 1022, (switch to the 110th Congress if the 111th has begun).

    The excellent Firearms Coalition started by the late Neal Knox and now run by his family members makes these important points about the upcoming Judiciary hearings for AG nominee Holder:

    "The Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee are all sworn enemies to the Second Amendment and are unlikely to be swayed at all by any firearms related arguments, but might hesitate to confirm based on Holder’s participation in the pardons of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists and billionaire financier and arms merchant Marc Rich [and perhaps the Elian Gonzalez abduction by federal agents Holder authorized]. Any letters to Democrats should focus on those issues.

    "On the Republican side, Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the committee has never been a friend to gun rights, but he owes his reelection to NRA support and has expressed concern over the pardon issues. Among the other Republicans, most are relatively reliable votes, but only Coburn has routinely taken a leadership role on Second Amendment matters. All of them need to be pressed hard to do everything they can to block the appointment.

    "For more information about Eric Holder and why his appointment must be fought tooth and nail, go to our web site at http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org ."

    God Bless us...

    Doc S
  2. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Feb 7, 2007
    Gillikin Country
    Been posted a lot.
  3. Sniper X

    Sniper X Member

    Jan 3, 2007
    New Mexico
    It'll never pass, even under the Obamanation.
  4. K3

    K3 Member

    Nov 14, 2006
    Looking through the scope at a coyote
    Be sure to write/call your congresscritters to ensure that this is the case.
  5. indoorsoccerfrea

    indoorsoccerfrea Member

    Nov 4, 2008
    Central Indy
    that doesnt leave much...
  6. KBintheSLC

    KBintheSLC Member

    Jul 30, 2007
    Stalingrad, USA
    This first got presented in 2007. If they want 'em they can come and get 'em. Enough said.
  7. gotgcoalman

    gotgcoalman Member

    Nov 3, 2008
    aycliffe village North east England
    happened here years ago in the UK.
    Banned all the best stuff.
    We still have a good time with the restricted 2+1 guns.

    mossberg/spaz folding stock high capacity mag are a thing of the past here.

    we have to be quick @ reloading now lol.

    sorry to hear that same sh*t is happening over the pond.

    politicians all over the word suck.
  8. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Member

    Jan 3, 2006
    In the past, weapons you currently own are still yours after such a ban. They call it grandfathering. Something about "ex post facto law" in the US constitution. I guess the UK doesn't have such a provision. That is why talk of confiscation in the US is a waste of time.
  9. cbrgator

    cbrgator Member

    Jan 23, 2008
    Yes and no. The government cannot outright confiscate the weapons, but they could confiscate them if they provided "just compensation" to the owner. It's a clause in the Fifth Amendment.
  10. tblt

    tblt member

    Dec 24, 2007
    My guns are worth more to me than they would give me.

    I have a few old junk guns Im hanging onto just in case they want me to give some up.For all they know I sold the rest
  11. Koontzy

    Koontzy Member

    Dec 19, 2007
    gator, you said the goverment cant confinscate the weapons?

    what about in New Orleans? where they officers were going door to door and taking peoples guns? I watched the cops pull up to a guy in a boat, take his gun and break it in half...(a shotgun)... yet noone rems this stuff happening.

    I was there and watched it happen
  12. expvideo

    expvideo Member

    Oct 9, 2006
    Everett, WA
    HR1022 failed. Nothing has been proposed to replace it yet. Until something has, these discussions are all speculation an zero fact.
  13. joker4096

    joker4096 Member

    Nov 15, 2008
    i dont see a barret .50 bmg on the list, lol i doubt it will pass though
  14. 6_gunner

    6_gunner Member

    Dec 4, 2006
    My understanding of ex post fact law is that the government can't punish you for doing something before it was illegal. I.e., they can't ban guns and then imprison people for owning them before the ban. I don't think that ex post facto law would have anything to do with "grandfathering," but I could be mistaken.

    I agree that outright confiscations are unlikely, though. I'm sure that any new bans will have a grandfathering clause. People wouldn't stand for outright confiscations. I don't think we're far enough gone as a society to tolerate door-to-door Gestapo-style raids.
  15. cbrgator

    cbrgator Member

    Jan 23, 2008
    I was speaking in legal terms, but you are absolutely correct. Legally, the government is bound to certain to do and not do certain things. In reality, they can do whatever they want because we are not organized to stop them. 225 years ago Bush would have been removed from office via revolution if he wasn't impeached first, but today we let him shred our Constitution like no president ever has.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page