OR you limit ammo supply. See NY and CA for now, eventually all you have is an expensive boat paddle.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound
Printable View
OR you limit ammo supply. See NY and CA for now, eventually all you have is an expensive boat paddle.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound
Well the first reply to my email has come back. Senator Bennett
[fail]But since the auto generated email system doesn't allow for reply guess what, no answer.Quote:
Dear Shawn:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Feinstein's assault weapons ban proposal. I appreciate hearing from you.
The numerous tragedies that our nation has had to face over the past year have been staggering. My own family, like all Americans, has been repeatedly shocked and deeply saddened by the violence we have witnessed, and my heart continues to be with the victims and their families. As Coloradans, we know how this type of tragedy can shake a community to its core and in the aftermath of these abhorrent acts our priority should be on supporting the survivors and families, and healing our communities.
We must have a real discussion in this country about finding ways to stop these senseless shootings. I believe a combination of improved access to mental health services, restrictions on certain weapons intended for the battlefield, and elimination of the gun show loophole are sensible steps that can protect our communities and particularly, our children. In Colorado, we support the right to bear arms and the ability of people to recreate, hunt, and protect their homes, and we want to keep the wrong weapons out the hands of the wrong people. I believe our state can come together to have a civil discussion that addresses these issues and as the President's taskforce releases its recommendations to prevent and reduce gun violence, we will ensure that Colorado's voices are heard.
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California plans to introduce a bill in the 113th Congress that will prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. The ban will include 120 specifically-named firearms and will apply to large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. The bill will also require grandfathered weapons to be registered under the National Firearms Act and will include a background check of the owner and any future transferees. Although Senator Feinstein has not introduced the bill, she has indicated that she will do so at the start of the legislative session.
I look forward to reviewing Senator Feinstein's proposal, along with others brought before Senate. Let us all continue to keep the communities affected by these tragic acts in our thoughts and prayers.
I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.
For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
http://f1850.mail.yahoo.com/ya/downl...hooMailClassic
Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator
Many people are that stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
Can't we just register in a trust and add the whole family then? Much like an NFA item
I would think so, I'm currently gettig ready to set up an NFA trust and all my firearms will be added to it along with a few selected people that are listed as trustees.
This is the kind of thinking they're hoping for. Chances are many will comply so they can continue their hobby activities. They'll think "well I can do this registration thing but if they come for them I'll say I sold them blah blah." The timespan between registration and confiscation will be short. It would be foolish for ANYONE to register but when things like this happen we become our own worst enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound
I doubt that horrible bill will even make it out of the Senate in it's original form. If it does there is still the House to block it. But if something passes that includes ANY form of registration then our gun hobby is essentially over and the stuff gets put away for what comes next. If you register then they know and you know damned well you're not going to blast the officers that come for them. Nobody should comply, period. We draw the line here and stick to it. That is our only hope.
If this abomination appears to gain traction, we should have a sunset amendment stating that if there is another "mass shooting" involving more than two (2) victims where the perpetrator uses ANY item on the list, the entire act is null and void immediately.
Just reading through and saw this. No longer a shoulder thingy that goes up.
15 ‘‘(38) The term ‘barrel shroud’—
16 ‘‘(A) means a shroud that is attached to, or
17 partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a fire18
arm so that the shroud protects the user of the fire19
arm from heat generated by the barrel; and
20 ‘‘(B) does not include—
21 ‘‘(i) a slide that partially or completely en22
closes the barrel; or
23 ‘‘(ii) an extension of the stock along the
24 bottom of the barrel which does not encircle or
25 substantially encircle the barrel.
Is it just me or does this sound like a way to generally ensnare anything that has a handguard on it?
Full text is here
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...f-69e69f517fb4
Nice list of the exempted firearms by name, (nice of them) I notice no pistols made the exempt list at all.
Although I find the entire bill absurd, why did a barrel shroud ever, even back in '94, make the list? I don't expect Feinstein to make sense or do anything based on logic or fact, but how does the presence, or absence, of a barrel shroud somehow make a shotgun more lethal?
In her twisted mind probably from some movies she saw they had them on the shotguns while on killing sprees...Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
This is REALLY BAD,
So basically every piece of this thing would have to be contested in SCOTUS and tossed to get rid of it, barring a separate act that repeals it.
Quote:
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made bythis Act, or the application of such provision or amend ment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments madeby this Act, and the application of such provision oramendment to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
That's exactly what it sounds like to me. My question is, if a rifle with a handguard is a banned "AW", does that mean it will be illegal to sell handguards under her perfect AWB? Since they are saying one evil feature makes a rifle a AW, I would suspect they would also want to ban anything that allows a post-ban rifle to be modified with these scary, murderous accessories? I haven't read it yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by thvigil11
Ah, here's my answer. Aftermarket parts are included in the AWB.
Guess I should have suspected as much. So they'll grandfather your scary guns but if they breakdown, you're shit out of luck buying replacement parts.Quote:
‘(L) Any combination of parts from which a
firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K)
can be assembled.
The truth is that the "barrel shroud" was included because it makes a regular gun look scarey. They were purposly casting a broad net so they got everything even remotely military looking out of the hands of civilians. Its about making sure that the people aren't comfortable around various types of guns so that there will be less people to fight further bans down the road.
This M1919 has a barrel shroud on it (and I guarantee this type of thing is what they were thinking of when they wrote it ... no I don't believe Carolyn McCarthy (or any other senate or congress critter) actually wrote a single word of it, like all these behemoth, byzantine laws, they're written by staffers and lobbyists and just rubber stamped by the politicritters).
http://browningmgs.com/AirGunnery/30cal/1919A4-M2.jpg
If I read this right, these are ok still since they are pump and bolt even though they're "scary" looking and have virtually all the banned features. These gun haters are out of their minds. [facepalm]
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/...nighthawk1.gif
http://www.barrett.net/images/firear.../mrad-hero.jpg
. . . or a flash hider, or a pistol grip, or a detachable magazine. The entire premise of this bill and its predecessor is ridiculous because all of these things are cosmetic and have zero impact on lethality. It's not supposed to make sense, it's just supposed to implement control.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
It's difficult for the rational and logical mind to comprehend any of this mess. There is nothing rational or logical about it except for their desire to turn us into subjects.
so when does this thing get voted on?
I completely agree that was the original intent. It just looks to me as if they have redefined barrel shroud as a back door way to encompass more "Evil Features"Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Does that DD, Midwest, or PRI free float handguard shield you from the heat? Does it encircle the barrel? Then it is one of those barrel shroud thingies. And it has a pistol grip? And a detachable super high capacity 7 round machinegun clip. Then I'm afraid you have an illegal weapon and have to go to the Federal Pound-Me-In-The-@$$ place we have for all you wacko/ extremists.
Ain't the first time they have rewritten the meaning of a word to suit their needs. Afraid they are casting that net even broader this time, they certainly have learned from their previous mistakes.
Bolt actions are exempt, no matter how scary they look. Which just proves they simply want to ban all semi-autos...they just add that "military feature" and exempt list BS so the ignorant think they really are just trying to ban scary killing machines and not the largest quantity of firearms as possible.
Quote:
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 1 of the
following:
Quote:
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import,
sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault
weapon.
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm
that—
(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
I would also like to know what the timeline looks like now.Quote:
Originally Posted by cofi
^^THIS^^
From another thread, I learned that it can take anywhere from a single day, to several months of deliberation. It sure would be nice if they just took one look at it and said absolutely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
With that said, Cuomo apparently handed out his bill to everyone important 20min before they started voting, which means none of them got to really research it (not like i have faith that they really do this anyway) or even really read it over.
Does anyone know how long the Clinton gun ban took from announcement to vote and law?
Unlike the Clinton era ban, this one has far more opposition and folks are not suffering from the same "It couldn't happen" attitude. We may still get boned on a magazine of 10, but anything else will never make it out of the House. Be more worried about CO legislation, the way the federal proposals are put together 95% of it is already DOA. Thanks in large part to the 2A supporters in the House.
We need to remind them that they will loose your vote if they can't do their sworn oath and protect the constitution.
[pileoshit]
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty19
In the words of Larry the Cable Guy, "I don't care who ya' are, that's funny right there."
Thanks for sharing!
- Chris
If only they really knew what people thought of their actions. They might not convince themselves that they are doing good work. Although, I think the smarter ones know that they are towing the party line and hope for great rewards from their masters later on... To bad for them the best that they can hope for is a small reward and the hope that the damage they cause never effects them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RepHolbert