Post-Ban Lower Receivers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

The next one if and when it happens will IMO ban and semi auto black rifles that holds a detachable magazine. Which will raise the company value of SCR and who knows how many other soon to mfg copies

https://fightlite.com/scr-lwr-mc

---

SCR would be banned as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxArt

Does it really annoy anyone else when they do cutesy bullcrap with the fire and safe? If you hand that off to someone who doesn't have it absolutely memorized, how do they know without pulling the trigger? It's not even clear in the context which would be which. This is one rare category I wish was regulated. (clearly mark safe and fire positions on new mfg)

---

It annoys me more that the 3rd position is not allowed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will1776

SCR would be banned as well

---

I doubt it as that lower is CADOJ compliant, even under the current restructuring CA did that went in to effect this year. But that list for a new, permenant ban would again cover every semi-auto they can think of. As well as leave the door open for "adjustments"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

I doubt it as that lower is CADOJ compliant, even under the current restructuring CA did that went in to effect this year. But that list for a new, permenant ban would again cover every semi-auto they can think of. As well as leave the door open for "adjustments"

---

An "assault weapon" is anything that's on the bill when it gets signed. So Ohio Democrats submitted a bill that would make any firearm that could accept a "high capacity magazine" into an "assault weapon". Some Oregon Democrats introduced a bill that defined "large capacity magazine" as "greater than five rounds". Combine those two concepts and every single pistol is an "assault weapon".

I think we'd be better off discussing actual federal proposals instead of mixing and matching various state laws in order to create a worst case scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justin

I think we'd be better off discussing actual federal proposals instead of mixing and matching various state laws in order to create a worst case scenario.

---

Since the states seem to be ignoring Chicago v McDonald, and laws seemed to be leveraged across states, it's wise to consider what those worst case scenarios could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

An "assault weapon" is anything that's on the bill when it gets signed. So Ohio Democrats submitted a bill that would make any firearm that could accept a "high capacity magazine" into an "assault weapon". Some Oregon Democrats introduced a bill that defined "large capacity magazine" as "greater than five rounds". Combine those two concepts and every single pistol is an "assault weapon".

---

Yeah, my 10-22 would be an "assault weapon". In Oregon is an M1 an "assault weapon" since it has an internal magazine greater than five rounds?

It seems we lost the battle of political language around the nonsensical term. My firearms are "defense weapons". They've never assaulted anyone. I now see further degradation of terminology with the use of "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" interchangeably by the MSM.

My truck is an assault weapon. I can mow down people faster than my AR can, and I dont have to reload every 15 hits.

They'll eventually go after those too. That's "too much" vehicle and you really don't "need" a truck. You're killing the planet and putting at risk those that are trying to save it in their tiny eco-vehicles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whitewalrus

I don?t really care myself, hardly use the safety on my ARs.

---

Let me guess:

Attachment 78964

I always thought it would be funny to have one where Safe was "Salaam" (Peace), Semi was "Harb" (war) and full auto was "JIHAD!" :D