National Gun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,672 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
STEPHEN GREEN
AUGUST 15, 2019


Proving once again they're absolutely clueless on firearms, nearly 200 House Democrats have indicated their support for legislation banning all semi-automatic firearms nationwide.

They aren't just talking about the dreaded AR-15 here. Every new Glock, outlawed. My dad's old .22 Browning target pistol, which my 13-year-old insists I leave to him in my will, would be among the last of its kind. And -- try not to think about this too hard, or you'll cry -- the Colt 1911 .45, perhaps the American sidearm, would be no more.

We'll get revolvers and bolt-action rifles and that's about it.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, authored by Rhode Island Democrat David Cicilline, would also ban "high capacity" magazines. Not that we'd have any new semi-automatic firearms to feed them into, anyway. Now that Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro, and Rep. Cindy Axne (D-Iowa) are on board, the bill is just 20 votes away from passage through Nancy Pelosi's House.

Showing she has absolutely no clue what she's talking about, Florida Democrat Frederica Wilson told The Hill on Wednesday, "Assault weapons were designed for one purpose: to kill people in war. Ordinary citizens should not own or have access to assault weapons." A .22 target pistol is now an "assault weapon." Good to know, Congresscritter!

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says he's looking at a huge list of possible new restrictions, including the above-mentioned bans on semi-automatics and "high capacity" magazines, along with banning those on the FBI's terrorist watch list from buying guns and nationwide "red flag" legislation.

Remember when Ted Kennedy found himself on the TSA's no-fly list and had trouble getting his name removed, even though he was a United States Senator with a (known) body count of just one? Imagine how well a typical American would fare, trying to get their name removed from the FBI's watch list if it somehow got on there by accident.

The Hill's Scott Wong wrote yesterday:

Democrats are under no illusion of what they’re up against. But by pushing for an assault weapons ban, they are fulfilling several goals: showing their liberal base they are listening and aggressively fighting for tougher gun reforms, and ramping up political pressure on Trump and McConnell by demonstrating what Democrats would do if voters handed them control of the White House and Senate in the 2020 elections.​

Emphasis added, along with a hearty, "Well, I should certainly hope so!" from me.

ASIDE: My plan was to will Dad's old Browning to my older son, but buy the modern equivalent ostensibly for me, but with the intent of leaving it to my younger son. I guess I'd better put that plan into action sooner rather than later, because it seems that never again will we be more than one election away from gutting the Second Amendment.​

Pelosi, with a sharper sense of electoral self-preservation than 198 members of her caucus, might not bring the bill up for a vote, even with nearly 200 co-sponsors. If she did, and if it were to pass, it would go to the Senate where it would languish on GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's watch. Even so, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is a good indicator of where the Democrats are on 2A, and what they'd do in 2021 if they were to sweep the 2020 elections.

This bill is pretty much the entire Democrat wishlist of things they think they might just get away with -- for now. But if the justification for banning all new semi-automatic firearms is that no civilian needs that much firepower, then it's easy to imagine that the next step would be banning the manufacture and sale of higher-caliber ammunition. "Nobody needs a .45 for self-protection," they'll claim. "You'll do just fine with a .38, or maybe even a .32."

I'll finish with something I stumbled across on Facebook the other day.

"The men who wrote the 2nd Amendment hadn’t just finished a hunting trip. They had just liberated a nation."

Now then: What will we do with that legacy?




https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/nea...bill-outlawing-all-new-semiautomatic-weapons/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
The Democrats have become enemies of America, and they are despotic; and their only intent is to kill America, or change it beyond recognition. The party is becoming Communist.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Proving once again they're absolutely clueless on firearms, nearly 200 House Democrats have indicated their support for legislation banning all semi-automatic firearms nationwide.

They aren't just talking about the dreaded AR-15 here. Every new Glock, outlawed. My dad's old .22 Browning target pistol, which my 13-year-old insists I leave to him in my will, would be among the last of its kind. And -- try not to think about this too hard, or you'll cry -- the Colt 1911 .45, perhaps the American sidearm, would be no more.
Bulldust. First clue is the inflammatory introduction. Second clue is no link to the primary source documents.

Send people to school, buy them books, and they bite the teacher.

The comment section below TFA at the original site went on for seven (7!) hours before someone became real and said:

Indispensable Destiny • 7 hours ago

It's clear that Stephen Green did not read the bill. Not that I support it, but it is Diane Feinstein's regurgitated "Assault Weapons Ban of 20XX" that she brings up nearly every year. It does not ban the 1911 or his father's target pistol. Pro-gun rights people need to be correct and not just make up stuff.
There are two (2) proposals, one in the House and one in the Senate.

It really ticks me off when someone like STEPHEN GREEN fails to read and comprehend primary sources.

Mind you, I in no way support either proposal. They are dead in the water anyway, I think.

It's political posturing in an election cycle, but come on, man ...
 

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
55,672 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The House Bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296/text?r=21&s=1


It’s basically the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 all over again, but rather than a weapon getting two “evil features” and still being legal, it now would only get one.

In particular, here’s how the law defines a “semiautomatic assault rifle.”

“(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
“(iv) A grenade launcher.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.
“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.​

In other words, it’s based on cosmetic features. This will, of course, be sidestepped by companies just like the 1994 ban was. The difference is that it might be a little bit trickier to keep it with just one feature. After all, pretty much all muzzle devices on an AR or AK are screwed on via threads. Is this a threaded barrel? If so, the pistol grip has to go.

The problem here is that it’s open to interpretation, and that means what’s legal today may not be legal tomorrow. (See also: bump stocks)

Also, the bill explicitly bans a number of existing “assault weapon” models by name including pretty much every AR- and AK-pattern rifle on the market. This isn’t particularly surprising, though, but these companies will simply sell compliant models under a different name and move on, should the bill pass somehow.

While most of this is a rehash and update from 1994, there’s one bit that’s not, however.

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.​

Now, this is clearly meant to ban things like bump stocks should the ATF decide to reverse their ruling on the devices. However, this one would have far greater potential implications than that.

For example, a competition trigger functions to make the trigger easier to pull, thus making it faster to pull. Arguably, any such trigger or something like a binary trigger will run afoul of the law at that moment. Even having a gunsmith modify your trigger to make it easier to pull could become illegal with the passage of this bill, should that happen.

While there’s a grandfather clause in the bill, again like the 1994 version, this last provision may be the most troubling. It’s overly broad, proves that the lawmakers behind this never spoke with anyone familiar with firearms while trying to craft it or it exposes the underlying evil intent of democrats supporting the Bill.
 

·
Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
24,902 Posts
I wished someone in Congress would submit a bill that would outlaw Democrats and liberals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: friendof2nd

·
Banned
Joined
·
142 Posts
The House Bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296/text?r=21&s=1


It’s basically the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 all over again, but rather than a weapon getting two “evil features” and still being legal, it now would only get one.

In particular, here’s how the law defines a “semiautomatic assault rifle.”
“(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability, of the weapon.
“(iv) A grenade launcher.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.
“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.​

In other words, it’s based on cosmetic features. This will, of course, be sidestepped by companies just like the 1994 ban was. The difference is that it might be a little bit trickier to keep it with just one feature. After all, pretty much all muzzle devices on an AR or AK are screwed on via threads. Is this a threaded barrel? If so, the pistol grip has to go.

The problem here is that it’s open to interpretation, and that means what’s legal today may not be legal tomorrow. (See also: bump stocks)

Also, the bill explicitly bans a number of existing “assault weapon” models by name including pretty much every AR- and AK-pattern rifle on the market. This isn’t particularly surprising, though, but these companies will simply sell compliant models under a different name and move on, should the bill pass somehow.

While most of this is a rehash and update from 1994, there’s one bit that’s not, however.
“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.​

Now, this is clearly meant to ban things like bump stocks should the ATF decide to reverse their ruling on the devices. However, this one would have far greater potential implications than that.

For example, a competition trigger functions to make the trigger easier to pull, thus making it faster to pull. Arguably, any such trigger or something like a binary trigger will run afoul of the law at that moment. Even having a gunsmith modify your trigger to make it easier to pull could become illegal with the passage of this bill, should that happen.

While there’s a grandfather clause in the bill, again like the 1994 version, this last provision may be the most troubling. It’s overly broad, proves that the lawmakers behind this never spoke with anyone familiar with firearms while trying to craft it or it exposes the underlying evil intent of democrats supporting the Bill.
+1
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,643 Posts
The typical pattern for these bills is that they get passed, THEN (and only then) gun owners get all bent out of shape about it and start working to get the bills reversed and undone. The process to get the laws undone is notoriously difficult (and mostly impossible).

The time to do something about it is NOW, when the law is still a bill. It's much easier and much less fraught with trouble. But I'm betting that this bill will follow the same patterns as before, ergo, other gun restricting bills are already sitting out there, waiting for further votes by congress.

We gotta write to these knuckleheads. (But don't call them knuckleheads and be decent, at least.)

--Wag--
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
The typical pattern for these bills is that they get passed, THEN (and only then) gun owners get all bent out of shape about it and start working to get the bills reversed and undone. The process to get the laws undone is notoriously difficult (and mostly impossible).

The time to do something about it is NOW, when the law is still a bill. It's much easier and much less fraught with trouble. But I'm betting that this bill will follow the same patterns as before, ergo, other gun restricting bills are already sitting out there, waiting for further votes by congress.

We gotta write to these knuckleheads. (But don't call them knuckleheads and be decent, at least.)

--Wag--
Can you give an example of a gun control bill that got undone? 1934 NFA, still there. 1968 GCA,still there. 1986 FOPA, still there.

Even the 94 AWB expired on the day the original bill specified and not a minute before; it wasn't undone, it lived it's full life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
I don't trust McConnell. He is talking about more background checks to help stop shootings like El Paso and Dayton - neither of which would have been affected in any way by any proposed law, but McConnell is still caving and talking gun control. So's Trump.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
12,643 Posts
Can you give an example of a gun control bill that got undone? 1934 NFA, still there. 1968 GCA,still there. 1986 FOPA, still there.

Even the 94 AWB expired on the day the original bill specified and not a minute before; it wasn't undone, it lived it's full life.
Nope. Can't think of a single one either. You make my point for me.

--Wag--
 
  • Like
Reactions: Levant

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
Can you give an example of a gun control bill that got undone? 1934 NFA, still there. 1968 GCA,still there. 1986 FOPA, still there.

Even the 94 AWB expired on the day the original bill specified and not a minute before; it wasn't undone, it lived it's full life.
Assault rifle ban?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
Democrats tried to renew it and were not successful by way of "something similar," right?
Renewal would be a new law, not the old law. Not renewing is not the same as repeal. No gun law has been repealed - at least none I know of. The assault weapons ban ran it's course.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top