2A News

ZRH

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
26,569
1,955
673
<3
Marklar
₥21,082
So with the democrats in charge and Bush not knowing the meaning of the word "veto" this has been introduced as a bill in committee.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

Which is pretty much worse than the 1994 "Crime Bill". Now if you remember that banned all military "looking" semi-autos, this would ban ALL semi autos. You are never sure how the ATF will interpret things.

There is no movement on it but if it passes I'd be better off living in Canada, since it would ban just about everything I love.

This seems like a laid back post but I know only two people here who would care about it much. FlyNavy and Knyte ^.^

I want to buy another lower now, but I need the money for a handgun permit :(
 
Luckily the Democrats don't have a controlling majority in either house right and many of them are blue dogs to begin with. I doubt this will get too far, especially with some of that language.


`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
Click to expand...
That alone is unfathomably retarded. Basically any part of the firearm that your hand goes around is considered a grip and thus banned...making every rifle a potential candidate.

:tard:





one good thing about this...seems a lot of us have a new shopping list :D
`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
Click to expand...
 
I doubt it will pass this time around without some bandwagon "tragic" event for people to rally behind. We were lucky that the thing in Trolley Square a few weeks ago was a done with a shotgun and not an AR.
 
Valve1138 said:
What do you need a semi-automatic weapon for?
Click to expand...

That isn't the point.

Why do you need the biggest possible screen TV? Or best possible audio system? Why do some people need the biggest, toughest truck they can get? Or the fastest car?

For most of the people that own semi-auto weapons the reason they do so is because they enjoy shooting them as a hobby. They don't need to justify their ownership of such weapons when the constitution gives them the right to do so. Just like you don't need to justify owning a laptop computer or car.
 
Last edited:
KNYTE said:
That isn't the point.

Why do you need the biggest possible screen TV? Or best possible audio system? Why do some people need the biggest, toughest truck they can get? Or the fastest car?

For most of the people that own semi-auto weapons the reason they do so is because they enjoy shooting them as a hobby. They don't need to justify their ownership of such weapons when the constitution gives them the right to do so. Just like you don't need to justify owning a laptop computer or car.
Click to expand...
I don't even own any guns, but that was pretty much what I was going to say.
 
I can understand the pistol grip part of the proposed law being a little too stiff. But everything else there looks alright. I don't see the big deal.

BTW, what age makes a rifle antique? I noticed that part of the proposed law.
 
hawk82 said:
I can understand the pistol grip part of the proposed law being a little too stiff. But everything else there looks alright. I don't see the big deal.

BTW, what age makes a rifle antique? I noticed that part of the proposed law.
Click to expand...

Why does it look alright? There is absolutely no reason to ban any of those weapons in the list. If people think it'll reduce crime, they're disgustingly wrong. Weapons such as these are generally expensive and combursome. Crimes are commited with small, cheap weapons readily available on the black market. Banning these won't stop a single crime.

The qualifiers are even worse.

(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.
Click to expand...
Why? Is it going to save any lives making it illegal for me to own a flash surpressor so I don't damage my eyes while at the range? Is it going to stop any crimes for me to put a forward grip on my AR-15 so I have better control over it?

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
Click to expand...
Is it going to make any difference for someone to be limited to ten rounds? That's ten people a criminal could potentially kill, why not allow just one bullet at a time? Oh that's right, because criminals rarely use these types of weapons in the first place. They're expensive, cumbersome, hard to conceal and generally not readily available on the black market.

`(L) A 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. In making the determination, 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.'.
Click to expand...
So in other words those weapons are good enough to defend the lives of cops and soldiers...but they're not good enough to defend my life?

`(36) Barrel Shroud- The term `barrel shroud' means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide that encloses the barrel, and does not include an extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.
Click to expand...
It says right there that the barrel shroud is to protect the user. Not to make it easier to commit crimes.


22.JPG


Does this gun look evil and scary to you? It's a .22 caliber plinking gun with accessories. It couldn't kill you unless I put it right to your skull yet it would be illegal under this.

It will save no lives. The last one didn't. The last one did nothing but keep law abiding citizens from owning effective weapons for defense, hunting and just plain fun. If it's good enough for the cops it's good enough for me.
 
FlyNavy said:
Why does it look alright? There is absolutely no reason to ban any of those weapons in the list. If people think it'll reduce crime, they're disgustingly wrong. Weapons such as these are generally expensive and combursome. Crimes are commited with small, cheap weapons readily available on the black market. Banning these won't stop a single crime.

The qualifiers are even worse.

Why? Is it going to save any lives making it illegal for me to own a flash surpressor so I don't damage my eyes while at the range? Is it going to stop any crimes for me to put a forward grip on my AR-15 so I have better control over it?

Is it going to make any difference for someone to be limited to ten rounds? That's ten people a criminal could potentially kill, why not allow just one bullet at a time? Oh that's right, because criminals rarely use these types of weapons in the first place. They're expensive, cumbersome, hard to conceal and generally not readily available on the black market.

So in other words those weapons are good enough to defend the lives of cops and soldiers...but they're not good enough to defend my life?

It says right there that the barrel shroud is to protect the user. Not to make it easier to commit crimes.


22.JPG


Does this gun look evil and scary to you? It's a .22 caliber plinking gun with accessories. It couldn't kill you unless I put it right to your skull yet it would be illegal under this.

It will save no lives. The last one didn't. The last one did nothing but keep law abiding citizens from owning effective weapons for defense, hunting and just plain fun. If it's good enough for the cops it's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Seriously man move to Utah, we need to hang out.
 
hawk82 said:
I can understand the pistol grip part of the proposed law being a little too stiff. But everything else there looks alright. I don't see the big deal.

BTW, what age makes a rifle antique? I noticed that part of the proposed law.
Click to expand...
Aside from what FlyNavy said. These things are all visual features. Anyone with a background or even passing interest in guns can tell you it is simply an attempt to outlaw everything that doesnt "look" like an over under shotgun. There is nothing functionally different between a rifle made in 1930 and one made now. There is also nothing functionally different between these rifles:

Cf_10-13-06mini.jpg


Usarmy_m16a2.jpg


Except one 'looks' more evil.

The antique thing is completely arbitrary rulings by the ATF (strangely the only law enforcement agency in the country allowed to make up laws as they go along). The ATF publishes a list, of named models, of guns they have decided are 'antique'. They can also take any gun they like off the list at any time. Has happened a couple times that they'll pull a name off the list in order to charge someone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back