National Gun Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:

I'm not an expert, but after reading through some of this, it appears to be a verbatim copy of the the '94 weapons act (including dates)


  • `(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition;
Does this mean it would be illegal for me to possess the magazines that I bought (which were manufactured) in 2007? :sosp:

Sponsored by Mark Kirk [R-IL].

This link will help you keep tabs on it: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257

Anyone know if this expands on the previous assault weapons ban, or if this is an exact copy? Because if it's an exact copy, it'll expire in 10 years and not have a significant effect, other than raising the price of high capacity magazines.

The bill is H.R. 6257: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 for anyone who wants to look it up themselves.
 

·
Conservative-Republican
Joined
·
371 Posts
The first of many bills to come I'm sure. We've all seen it coming, I'm already trying to find the money to stock pile extra ammo while I still can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,633 Posts
I think we have a couple good years before this stuff starts raising its ugly head. Obama has waaay too much to worry about right now. He has had a meeting with the Treasury folks and the top end security briefing. And as my wife put it after seeing the expression on his face in the press conference right after, Obama just experienced his first (of many) "Oh, shyt what did I get into?" moments. With the economy the way it is, learning that all his give aways will break the economy totally, president Iamlostmydick of Iran isn't just misunderstood and in need of a hug, the Russian really did invade Georgia unprovoked, and Elvis is really dead, I will bet his little liberal head is swimming. Plus, add to this Moveon.org ran a full page ad in the NY Times that announced to the world "We gave Obama 88 million dollars! (possibly illegal) Obama better do what we say!" I will bet the guy is feeling a bit between a rock and a hard place. ANd he hasn;t even drawn his first pay check yet!

HEE, heee, heee. Not as easy to play with the big dogs as you thought, is it, Barry?
 

·
Pro Gun Advocate
Joined
·
10,940 Posts
Can't recall where I heard/read this, but one opinion on this is that the Dems will not touch this for the first two years for fear of a 2010 election backlash.

If they get a super-majority then, look out!
 

·
Harley Dude
Joined
·
14,651 Posts
You-all give them tooooooo much credit. They are walking around holding up their heads with their hands since their egos are so inflated. Don't be too sure that they won't just send a flock of chicken sh---iz legislation down the pipe within about six months or less. They have been waiting a long time for this conversion of power and will be ready.

These folks don't operate using Common Sense or Logic when they make their chess moves its all about emotion and agenda. Hold your breath and watch the pot stir. The Brady Bunch is ecstatic.
 

·
Drunk Supernova
Joined
·
6,002 Posts
You-all give them tooooooo much credit. They are walking around holding up their heads with their hands since their egos are so inflated. Don't be too sure that they won't just send a flock of chicken sh---iz legislation down the pipe within about six months or less. They have been waiting a long time for this conversion of power and will be ready.

These folks don't operate using Common Sense or Logic when they make their chess moves its all about emotion and agenda. Hold your breath and watch the pot stir. The Brady Bunch is ecstatic.
Agreed. Now is not the time for gun owners to be on the defensive. We need to go on the offensive and make any legislation against firearms so painful for the the libs that they loose all interest in pushing forward with it. We need to think up every scenario that they could possibly come at us with and cut them off before they even start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
*Bumper sticker from Texas :*

*'I'll keep my freedom, my Bible, my guns, my money... you can keep THE CHANGE'.


:mad1:
 

·
Texas Legal Gunslinger
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
Does this mean it would be illegal for me to possess the magazines that I bought (which were manufactured) in 2007? :sosp:
No. Pursuant to 3(a)(2), it would only ban magazines manufactured after the date the bill is signed into law. Applying the ban to make ownership of magazines manufactured prior to the enactment of the ban would constitute a "taking" under the constution. In the event of a taking (most commonly eminent domain), "reasonable compensation" is required. In short, it won't happen. Additionally, they cannot make a law retro-active like that. But if you are intended on purchasing high capacity magazines, the sooner you can get them, the better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,633 Posts
You-all give them tooooooo much credit. They are walking around holding up their heads with their hands since their egos are so inflated. Don't be too sure that they won't just send a flock of chicken sh---iz legislation down the pipe within about six months or less. They have been waiting a long time for this conversion of power and will be ready.

These folks don't operate using Common Sense or Logic when they make their chess moves its all about emotion and agenda. Hold your breath and watch the pot stir. The Brady Bunch is ecstatic.

I respectfully agree and disagree. Piglosi found out real fast that she holds no real power over the blue dogs from the south and west. These are moderate to conservative dems that refused to budge on a lot of issues. There haver three attempts to re-authorize the AWB in the past three years. None got off the floor or even to committee. Why? Is it because Bush would veto it? No, he stated that he would sign it if it got to his desk. Was it the Republicans in the senate that stopped it? No. It was the blue dogs who refused to get in lock step with Piglosi and her band of traitors. There were several other anti-gun bills that died in this session. I do not see it until the earliest 2010, then and only if they have a super majority of far left loons.

Do not take what I am saying as permission to go to sleep on this, far from it. Gun owners need to make lots and lots of noise. It is noise makers that get all the attention in DC. When you see bad gun stories in the local papers, challenge them. I saw in my local paper a header that said "Father taught son to shoot rifle." Yep the kid killed his father and uncle with a rifle in another part of the state. But as things panned out, it appears the boy may have been justified as he was being abused sexually and physically by both of these men. It is subtle wording like this that molds the thinking of the sleeping masses.
 

·
Harley Dude
Joined
·
14,651 Posts
Agreed. Now is not the time for gun owners to be on the defensive. We need to go on the offensive and make any legislation against firearms so painful for the the libs that they loose all interest in pushing forward with it. We need to think up every scenario that they could possibly come at us with and cut them off before they even start.

+1 I agree. Gun owners need to line up all the Democratic members in Congress that support the second amendment. Many union members are hunters, target shooters and gun owners so it will be important to fight the Congress tooth and nail as the legislation rears its ugly head.

I hope to see a Congress divided on gun issues. If not we are in for quite a trip.
 

·
Drunk Supernova
Joined
·
6,002 Posts
Thank you Sig.

What we need to do is fight the way our enemy does.

In the past we have used nothing but facts to support our stance. The opposition has used nothing but emotion. I say that we turn and use both.
 

·
Harley Dude
Joined
·
14,651 Posts
Thank you Sig.

What we need to do is fight the way our enemy does.

In the past we have used nothing but facts to support our stance. The opposition has used nothing but emotion. I say that we turn and use both.
Yep, we have to learn to shriek like they do and get in their faces. Have some million man conservative demonstrations. What ever it takes to get their attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
I looked that bill up, and it appears to have been introduced in June, about a week or so before Heller was ruled on. It had 4 republican sponsors, and may have had another, but I could only find reference to her on one web site. Plus, she is rated A- by the GOA, so it's very unlikely she was a sponsor. I think that the inclusion was either a mistake, or an outright attempt to get her discredited, probably for the election. There are no democratic sponsors.

As far as I can tell, this bill died in committee, not long after the Heller decision. Once they made the ruling that an entire class of weapons could not be banned, the sponsors probably figured it wouldn't pass constitutional muster, and dropped it.

I base that on the fact that there was never really a big deal made out of it. I've been closely following everything gun rights related since at least June, and the first time I heard about this bill was a few days ago.
 

·
Chicago Pro-Gun Activist
Joined
·
2,444 Posts
You-all give them tooooooo much credit. They are walking around holding up their heads with their hands since their egos are so inflated. Don't be too sure that they won't just send a flock of chicken sh---iz legislation down the pipe within about six months or less. They have been waiting a long time for this conversion of power and will be ready.

These folks don't operate using Common Sense or Logic when they make their chess moves its all about emotion and agenda. Hold your breath and watch the pot stir. The Brady Bunch is ecstatic.
Agreed. Now is not the time for gun owners to be on the defensive. We need to go on the offensive and make any legislation against firearms so painful for the the libs that they loose all interest in pushing forward with it. We need to think up every scenario that they could possibly come at us with and cut them off before they even start.
+1 I agree. Gun owners need to line up all the Democratic members in Congress that support the second amendment. Many union members are hunters, target shooters and gun owners so it will be important to fight the Congress tooth and nail as the legislation rears its ugly head.

I hope to see a Congress divided on gun issues. If not we are in for quite a trip.
Thank you Sig.

What we need to do is fight the way our enemy does.

In the past we have used nothing but facts to support our stance. The opposition has used nothing but emotion. I say that we turn and use both.
Yep, we have to learn to shriek like they do and get in their faces. Have some million man conservative demonstrations. What ever it takes to get their attention.
One very critical point that we can learn from the British - be organized and come together as a group. The firearms owners of England learned too late that by not organizing as a large group and taking the gun ban seriously, you can loose your firearms. They did not organize as a group and look where it got them. Once we are organized as a comprehensive, national group, we can fight them on their our terms and to our advantage.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
921 Posts
I've gotten about 5 Hi Cap mags for my browning so far, next paycheck I'm getting 5 more

I'm tempted to start picking up AR and AK HiCap Mags just because they might be worth something in a few years (I dont own a rifle...yet)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,547 Posts
I found this in the FULL TEXT of the bill....


SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
  • (a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
    ‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.



Then I found the definition of "certain semiautomatic assualt weapons.......

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after paragraph (29) the following:
‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means--
  • ‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
    • ‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
      ‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
      ‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
      ‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
      ‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
      ‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
      ‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
      ‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
      ‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
    ‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
    • ‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
      ‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
      ‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
      ‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
      ‘(v) a grenade launcher
 

·
Harley Dude
Joined
·
14,651 Posts
SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
  • (a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
    ‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
It then becomes interesting to see what they define as a semiautomatic assault weapon. Of course the DC city folks think that a semi auto handgun is a automatic weapon and banned them.
Congress can do anything it wants to do simply by adding all semi-auto weapons to the list.

I assume it means anything that is painted black and looks evil but you can't trust them to stick to that definition either.
 

·
Drunk Supernova
Joined
·
6,002 Posts
Oh this is gonna be bad.
 

·
Texas Legal Gunslinger
Joined
·
3,531 Posts
Just to give the full picture (and to help y'all sleep better knowing that the bill doesn't apply to current firearms), I enclose the following.

‘(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 this subsection.

But we still need to fight this useless and ineffective legislation.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top