Post-Ban Lower Receivers

[Great-Kazoo]

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"

[Rucker61]

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".

[Gman]

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.

[Aloha_Shooter]

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.

But an M-1 WAS an assault weapon .... 75-80 years ago. The soldiers assaulting Omaha and Juno Beaches utterly depended on it (well, it and the naval fire from 16-inch guns and aerial bombardments and ...).

[Gman]

But an M-1 WAS an assault weapon .... 75-80 years ago. The soldiers assaulting Omaha and Juno Beaches utterly depended on it (well, it and the naval fire from 16-inch guns and aerial bombardments and ...).

It was a weapon of war built for the battlefield, but doesn't fit the criteria of either an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle".

...but I think you knew that.

[Will1776]

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"

The new federal ban bill uses a one feature test and one feature is a pistol grip. They define a pistol grip as anything that can function as a grip. The textured portion of the SCR stock can function as a grip. Basically every semi auto unless specifically exempted like the Mini 14 would be banned due to this definition. Not enough people are talking about that small piece.