Assault Weapon Ban of 2017

[The Heretic]

This is a Democrat wet dream..........it isn't going anyplace with the current Federal administration and Congress.

They know it won't pass. This is something they can introduce to say they tried to do something, but the evil GOP stopped them.

Be careful though - there is already a recoil against Trump and the GOP; the elections this week are just a start. The elections next year will have even more impact. As it is right now things are turning against us already. If the tax bill passes a good portion of the "true believers" are going to get hit in their paychecks next year and they won't be too happy.

A severe gun ban probably won't pass - even Obama didn't try that - but a nationwide BGC requirement might pass.

 

[Pete F]

SH!T I just bought 2 Henry BIG BOYS Brass receivers in 44mag and 357mag they are both listed are you SH!TTING me

You're Henry's are safe so far. They are specifically exempted. If you are worried, I will be glad to take them off of your hands and dispose of them properly, or something.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Door to door gun grabber confiscation?

MOLON LABE BUBBLEGUMMERS!!!!!!

 

[Who The F R U]

Just out of curiosity... is your not shipping to WA due to legislation our oxygen-thieves passed, or statement like Barrett refusing CA business? Owning a semi Ma Deuce is on my Powerball List, though a semi M1918 BAR is higher, and neither are firm Bucket List like a Thompson.

The Only thing we don't send to Washington is the Glock kit's.

And Yes 1919a4's and M2HB's in .50bmg are 100% legal to own in California.

 

[Who The F R U]

M2's and m1919 semi autos are (or were?) actually legal in California. They are in a different class than a rifle or pistol......something like an industrial weapon that falls in a different category.

They are not legally considered a rifle they are a Miscellaneous weapon and yes we still ship to Kommie-Fornia

 

[Dungannon]

So the firearms industry went into a slump after Trump's election, and one-time scarce ammunition is now readily available. Will this sort of proposed legislation give the industry a big bump?

[I have one AR and that's all I want. So I'm hoping the AR-15 part of the industry goes bonkers, and manufacturers find themselves heavily discounting the bolt-actions, pumps and lever guns I really like.]

 

[nammac]

Door to door gun grabber confiscation?

That's going to get messy... I don't think there's enough of them to sustain door to door confiscation... Not to mention the bloodbath that could ensue...

 

[No_Regerts]

That's going to get messy... I don't think there's enough of them to sustain door to door confiscation... Not to mention the bloodbath that could ensue...

I was once involved in a standoff for over 16 hours. It was over one guy, one hostage. SWAT teams from all over the region had to deploy.

LE doesn't prep like the military. Any losses are considered unacceptable. This mentality makes it very difficult to commit to dynamic operations. One person takes fire, the whole mess bogs down.

My theory is that big city LE is the biggest threat in a gun grab. Big city politics are mostly liberal and it effects the PDs. LE trains specifically to operate against US citizens. The weakness is the unwillingness to take losses. Another weakness would be the lack of cooperation from outlying PDs and SOs that don't share big city politics. Too many decision makers with too many opinions.

The military operates in a way that losses are seen as inevitable. It keeps things moving because the military is trained to operate through casualties. I don't see a military assisted gun grab because service members train to fight foreign enemies to preserve freedom at home. Martial law isn't what service members want.

All it would take is for people to hit back.

 

[Argonaut]

They are not legally considered a rifle they are a Miscellaneous weapon and yes we still ship to Kommie-Fornia

That is what I remember but how do you get around the 50 cal issue? Barrett's can not be sold in 50BMG.

 

[ARKLITE881South]

"they'' will continue to chip away at our rights, trying to push the ''right'' persons button to cause another shooting. Then, they, same they, will pass a law of confiscation, and or jail/prison/fines. Don't let anyone kid you, betting a lot of them watch this and other like websites all the time. And, plan accordingly. You will never convince the left wing establishment, that its not the guns that kill. Its the Human/person factored into guns that kill. I've got guns that i've had for 60 years, i know they have not killed anyone. No doubt, for a person to actually kill some one, with a firearm, it takes a mentally, defective , out of control person to start and follow through with a crime like that.

Honest, sane, responsible people do not commit crimes with firearms. But, if put in a bad situation, with a firearm CAN, and WILL do all they can to turn a bad situation, into a better situation. Case in point, Last week in Texas. But, left wingers, wanted you to believe the ''good guy'' use his ''hunting rifle'' they ''forgot'' to mention it was an AR15!! If you have not, look up the 51 min interview by the NRA of a real HERO, Stephen Willeford in Texas. And, lets not forget John Langendorf the driver of the pickup that helped Mr Willeford catch up to the mentally deranged killer. Watch the interview, you'll never be sorry you did.

NRA INTERVIEW link

 

[Who The F R U]

That is what I remember but how do you get around the 50 cal issue? Barrett's can not be sold in 50BMG.

.50 cal rifle ban they are not rifles.

 

[Caveman Jim]

"they'' will continue to chip away at our rights, trying to push the ''right'' persons button to cause another shooting. Then, they, same they, will pass a law of confiscation, and or jail/prison/fines. Don't let anyone kid you, betting a lot of them watch this and other like websites all the time. And, plan accordingly. You will never convince the left wing establishment, that its not the guns that kill. Its the Human/person factored into guns that kill. I've got guns that i've had for 60 years, i know they have not killed anyone. No doubt, for a person to actually kill some one, with a firearm, it takes a mentally, defective , out of control person to start and follow through with a crime like that.

Honest, sane, responsible people do not commit crimes with firearms. But, if put in a bad situation, with a firearm CAN, and WILL do all they can to turn a bad situation, into a better situation. Case in point, Last week in Texas. But, left wingers, wanted you to believe the ''good guy'' use his ''hunting rifle'' they ''forgot'' to mention it was an AR15!! If you have not, look up the 51 min interview by the NRA of a real HERO, Stephen Willeford in Texas. And, lets not forget John Langendorf the driver of the pickup that helped Mr Willeford catch up to the mentally deranged killer. Watch the interview, you'll never be sorry you did.

NRA INTERVIEW link

I saw the original video with Louder with Crowder & he is a HERO.
You are right that the liberals & Fudds will never understand the true meaning of common sense.

 

[notazombie]

That's going to get messy... I don't think there's enough of them to sustain door to door confiscation... Not to mention the bloodbath that could ensue...

No, I meant maybe we should go door to door and confiscate all the grabbers. See how they like the shoe on the other foot. Or boot in the other neck.

 

[DunRanull]

Why can't we just deport all these Commie monkeyhumpers to Cuba or Venezuela where they belong?

Or - perhaps- a "Camp of Special Detention" for re-education and protective concentration.. Oh wait, we can't do that, it's what THEY want to do to US.... I have been told by a couple libs that we have no business in the "modern" USA... go figger...

 

[FireArm]

The way to fight this is with political term limits, no politicians should be in office longer then 4years. That should be a lifetime in politics. 4 years no more ever.
I feel you should have to been born in the state you want to be a politician or have lived there over 10years. You should have a vested interest in the state to be part of its politics.
Same with federal politicians, term limits, and born on U.S. soil or been here over 20 years.

America needs to get rid of these "career politicians", with short term limits, and limits on how many offices they can switch to.

 

[The Heretic]

I was once involved in a standoff for over 16 hours. It was over one guy, one hostage. SWAT teams from all over the region had to deploy.

LE doesn't prep like the military. Any losses are considered unacceptable. This mentality makes it very difficult to commit to dynamic operations. One person takes fire, the whole mess bogs down.

My theory is that big city LE is the biggest threat in a gun grab. Big city politics are mostly liberal and it effects the PDs. LE trains specifically to operate against US citizens. The weakness is the unwillingness to take losses. Another weakness would be the lack of cooperation from outlying PDs and SOs that don't share big city politics. Too many decision makers with too many opinions.

The military operates in a way that losses are seen as inevitable. It keeps things moving because the military is trained to operate through casualties. I don't see a military assisted gun grab because service members train to fight foreign enemies to preserve freedom at home. Martial law isn't what service members want.

All it would take is for people to hit back.

To a point I agree.

However.

First.

If the ban is federal, it will be mostly federal LEOs that will be trying to enforce it (I totally agree about large metro LEOs). There would be no reluctance on their part, none whatsoever - just the opposite. ATF, FBI, Dept. of Homeland Security, probably other alphabet agencies - they would all jump on this (in no small part because of the funding and power they would get).

Second.

Divide and conquer.

First the bans and confiscations would be for "evil" guns, and then later progress on to declaring other guns evil too.

There would be programs to turn in firearms. Amnesties and so on.

Maybe half of current gun owners would turn in their firearms - those that own maybe one or two. Not all gun owners are like those here on this forum. Indeed, most of the 100 million gun owners have just a few, maybe one for protection, maybe a family heirloom, a shotgun for bird hunting or clays shooting, a .22 for dealing with pests. Most of these people would turn in their firearms.

Third.

It would not be a house to house search.

They would target high profile gun owners to make an example of them - the goal would be to motivate other reluctant gun owners to avoid being targeted, fines, court time and possibly prison. There would be another amnesty, and more would turn in their firearms.

Finally.

If necessary, the military would indeed get involved. They have been before, and if there is enough insurrection they can legally get involved.

 

[No_Regerts]

To a point I agree.

However.

First.

If the ban is federal, it will be mostly federal LEOs that will be trying to enforce it (I totally agree about large metro LEOs). There would be no reluctance on their part, none whatsoever - just the opposite. ATF, FBI, Dept. of Homeland Security, probably other alphabet agencies - they would all jump on this (in no small part because of the funding and power they would get).

Second.

Divide and conquer.

First the bans and confiscations would be for "evil" guns, and then later progress on to declaring other guns evil too.

There would be programs to turn in firearms. Amnesties and so on.

Maybe half of current gun owners would turn in their firearms - those that own maybe one or two. Not all gun owners are like those here on this forum. Indeed, most of the 100 million gun owners have just a few, maybe one for protection, maybe a family heirloom, a shotgun for bird hunting or clays shooting, a .22 for dealing with pests. Most of these people would turn in their firearms.

Third.

It would not be a house to house search.

They would target high profile gun owners to make an example of them - the goal would be to motivate other reluctant gun owners to avoid being targeted, fines, court time and possibly prison. There would be another amnesty, and more would turn in their firearms.

Finally.

If necessary, the military would indeed get involved. They have been before, and if there is enough insurrection they can legally get involved.

The feds are very widely dispersed and they have an awkward forming and norming stage before they are mobilized well enough to do anything. Depending on where it is, cooperation from local agencies can be good, or just horrible. There can be some epic pizzing contests between locals and feds.

High profile hasn't worked well for the feds. Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind. They may try high profile and may have some successes until some agents are killed. LE doesn't have the mindset for losses.

The military can get involved, but I don't think an All-Volunteer military has the stomach to fight its own people.

 

[The Heretic]

The feds are very widely dispersed and they have an awkward forming and norming stage before they are mobilized well enough to do anything. Depending on where it is, cooperation from local agencies can be good, or just horrible. There can be some epic pizzing contests between locals and feds.

High profile hasn't worked well for the feds. Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind. They may try high profile and may have some successes until some agents are killed. LE doesn't have the mindset for losses.

The military can get involved, but I don't think an All-Volunteer military has the stomach to fight its own people.

Waco was an example that came to mind when I thought of high profile targets.

I am not saying it would not be a mess, I am just saying that in my experience (USCG with DEA, et. al.) that the feds are quite willing to jump into this if they think it will get them the funds and power they want. Back when I was in the CG we were under the DOT and the CG occifers were all hot on the "war on drugs" because they wanted new equipment (we mostly had hand me down stuff from the Navy - WWII era stuff) - look where they are now under DHS (talking to some currently and recently in the CG, they are very much gung ho on drug interdiction and other law enforcement - the CG's primary missing used to be SAR, then that changed).

The military is willing to do what they are ordered to do. Some would not, and the military would find themselves to be very unpopular if they got involved - but they will follow orders, more so now than in the past. They have gotten involved in the past throughout our history - Waco is one example.

My point is that there are a lot of gun owners who currently say "come take" (and bring your lunch - you will need it), but after a few well publicized incidents of confiscation conflicts, those numbers will drop significantly, popular support will drop on both sides, and the populace will start reporting suspected and known gun owners. This is one reason why I tell friends and family to not tell others that they own guns, especially military style guns, especially if they are not "on paper" or they have plausible deniability with regards to their ownership.

That said, I don't think such a ban has much chance of being passed - but then I did not think Trump would be elected either.

If a ban is passed, most likely it would not be enforced widely - but if the gov. decides to enforce it, they will and some people will suffer and it will be a terrible mess.

 

[notazombie]

I frequently wish there was an agree button. Hard to "like" a lot of this stuff.

 

[etrain16]

I have little concern this bill will pass - even the dumbazz R's in congress right now know better than that. And I do believe Trump, if given a final bill, would veto.

But this should stand as a reminder that the anti's are still there, ready to fight, and getting more and more pizzed. By the time they regain power (and they will, eventually), be prepared for an assault on our rights unlike anything we've seen since Sandy Hook. Their ire toward us is building and they will be ready to take it out on us.

Elections matter. Remember that when you choose to vote (or not vote). Consider the folks that not only say they're pro-gun, but have a demonstrated record of pro-gun action/votes. And remember the lying bastards that said they were pro-gun, but proved they weren't.