List of Weapons Banned - as introduced 1/24

[RicInOR]

John Kerry - The next Sec. of State apparently, who by the way served in Viet Nam, pictured holding a shotgun with a "pistol grip"

Google Image Result for http://www.fototime.com/2A3D939FC865ACB/standard.jpg

Now you might say - that is not a pistol grip - look at the AK or ARs to see what a pistol grip is. But if the pistol portion extended beyond the stock by 1in then it was a pistol grip.

He also claimed to have a full auto Chinese made AK from his time in the service to America - wonder if he had that 'destroyed'?


The problem is one of feature creep. Something like the grip needs to be ergonomic so the weapon can be used safely.

And, suppressors are a safety feature. If OSHA looked at it, shouldn't they be required in the work place ie Police, armed security?


Your representatives need to hear from you, often.
Try contacting their local offices.

 

[RicInOR]

follow up - John Kerry & AK47
BREAKING NEWS JOHN KERRY HAS Vieman bring back AK47 ON THE WALL IN HIS OFFICE - AR15.COM
It seems Kerry owns his own AK-47
<broken link removed>

 

[1stklass]

Hmmmm, i dont think i will tell her she missed the PTR91 which although she got the HK91 on there by NAME she missed my gun.... quick everyone! go buy one!

 

[Medic!]

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:
&#61623; Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.
o The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.
&#61623; Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.
o Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.
o So-called "bullet buttons" that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.
o Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.
&#61623; Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
&#61623; Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire


The most sneeky part of this bill I have seen so far is this. Now think about this. Look at that last line. If they eliminate the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire. All guns made between 2004 and now would not be legal guns. At best we could reconfigure them. But probibly we would need to turn them in or face charges. Why else reenact the long dead ''94'' ban? This new 2013 ban has more teeth. It's got to be a play to go after the guns made since 2004. Say by-by to all these new designed guns like most piston driven ar's. That's if this passes. At least I can keep my HK-91.

 

[RicInOR]

follow up - John Kerry & AK47

Bush Vs. Kerry | Outdoor Life


BREAKING NEWS JOHN KERRY HAS Vieman bring back AK47 ON THE WALL IN HIS OFFICE - AR15.COM
It seems Kerry owns his own AK-47
<broken link removed>

 

[beavertonbuck]

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:
&#61623; Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.
o The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.
&#61623; Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.
o Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.
o So-called "bullet buttons" that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.
o Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.
&#61623; Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
&#61623; Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire


The most sneeky part of this bill I have seen so far is this. Now think about this. Look at that last line. If they eliminate the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire. All guns made between 2004 and now would not be legal guns. At best we could reconfigure them. But probibly we would need to turn them in or face charges. Why else reenact the long dead ''94'' ban? This new 2013 ban has more teeth. It's got to be a play to go after the guns made since 2004. Say by-by to all these new designed guns like most piston driven ar's. That's if this passes. At least I can keep my HK-91.

I don't think that the right reading of the bill. All legally owned guns will be grandfathered in. Rather this means that this bill would stay in effect unless repealed by Congress and the President rather than expiring at a certain date. From a strategic point of view that is a great move (on their part). First, we can only throw them out of office once and therefore they don't have to fight the same battle in 10 years and risk losing power again. Secondly we have mostly been winning the battle up to this point. They realize that they need a really emotional climate to pass such laws, a climate that does not come along that often.

If we stick together and are vocal to our representatives I'm cautiously optimistic that we can beat this back.

 

[andreys21]

I see a lot of the bubblegum on there is just stuff they can give up to compromise with the GOP in order to push it through. I think they will drop registration requirement.

But it doesn't mean nothing will go through. Do not let your guard down, keep writing to your reps and the POTUS. This time a REAL, physical letter with a stamp. Flood their mailbox, pile it on. Send a clear message in case they missed the point. ALSO, show up to your state capitols on the 8th in mass numbers. Bring everyone you know.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

People need to disregard the list of banned weapons. That's in the bill as a distraction. The specific design requirements in the bill outlaw a lot more weapons than are on that list. Any 10-22 with a pistol grip stock, for instance. Don't be fooled by looking at the list and NOT seeing your favorite gun there. It will be outlawed if it meets the specs.

 

[Kevinkris]

made sure to send my message courtesy of congress.org. of course i took my last name and contact info off for the forum.

Message sent to the following recipients:
Representative Bonamici
Senator Merkley
Senator Wyden
President
Message text follows:

Kevin B.



January 24, 2013

[recipient address was inserted here]


[recipient name was inserted here],

To anyone interested in the facts,

Looking at the proposed bill "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" i find myself
bewildered at the falsehoods used as untrue supporting "facts" for why
this bill should be passed. Saying that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994"
has reduced the number of firearm crimes is misleading, when you consider
that all violent crime have been reducing for the last 20 years at a
consistent rate that is unaffected by the expiration of the previous ban.

Also important to know that more people committed murder with their bare
hands than rifles in the last 20 years. The states with the highest
restrictions on firearms also has the highest rates of murder in the
country and even more in the large city centers where guns are not
permitted. Washington D.C. would be a great example of this.

I cant help but feel sorrow for those advocating for strict gun control
based on information given to the by main stream media and misinformation
spread by politicians, even one who was convicted of multiple violent
offenses, who carried an AK-47 into a capital building.

If we are going to reduce deaths by firearms in this country, it should be
by using education of firearms, how to use then, how to respect them and
when its appropriate to point them at another human being. More people are
killed by firearms accidentally than purposefully. As a society we have
moved away from teaching the youth how to properly handle a weapon.

I would also like to point out that a ban on weapons is infringing on the
2nd Amendment and directly weakening The People's ability to fight off a
threat to their rights. As in two cases in the 1940's, where the Japanese
commanders only made an air assault on Pearl Harbor because they feared
the armed populace more than the soldiers and the Battle of Athens when a
group of politicians cheated The People's right to vote and held the
county as if it were a dictatorship for the previous 10 years, The People
took up arms to return to the rights guaranteed to them by the "Bill of
Rights".

The "Bill of Rights" did not give use the right to own firearms for
hunting, shooting at clay discs and paper targets, it gave us the right to
bare arms, meaning weapons of war. Even our founding fathers acknowledge
that it is a god given right for The People to alter or abolish a
tyrannical government should the need arise as written in the "Declaration
of Independence". Removing weapons from the hands of The People is simply
un-American.

I hope that in reading this you take the time to find real facts before
making any foolish decision, like allowing this bill to pass.




Sincerely,


Kevin B.

 

[Medic!]

Not sure what you are saying? There dose not look to be any sunset mentioned for this 2013 bill? So why bother to reenact the 94 ban? Except to go after the guns made between 2004 and now. Guns not made in line with the 94 ban. A ban that if they get their way never ended! Not saying put the 94 ban back in place from now forward. Im sayin they want to make it as if the 94-2004 ban never ended!

 

[Kevinkris]

well i dont know of any LEO that is willing to knock on someones door to confiscate their weapons, mostly for the fear of taking it from a skilled marksman, so its unlikely they will pass that. not to mention the mob they would have to deal with if a confiscation was announced. 40% of Americans own guns and i have no doubt that all of the gun owners will need to buy new mags and/or buy parts to modify their weapons to be compliant.

not to mention the number of jobs that will be eliminated by passing a single bill. how the hell can they justify that? a few years ago when Merix laid off 25% of its workforce in Forest Grove a man went home and killed his wife, 14 year old son and then himself. his son lived long enough to tell the police his dad did that to him because he lost his job and was going to loose their home because of it. imagine how many more times such a thing could happen with the number of lay offs that will happen if they shut down countless production shops with this bill.

 

[beavertonbuck]

Not sure what you are saying? There dose not look to be any sunset mentioned for this 2013 bill? So why bother to reenact the 94 ban? Except to go after the guns made between 2004 and now. Guns not made in line with the 94 ban. A ban that if they get their way never ended! Not saying put the 94 ban back in place from now forward. Im sayin they want to make it as if the 94-2004 ban never ended!

They are re-enacting the old AWB but they are trying to pass a new one. In the letter they note how this bill is "better" than the 94 AWB. They are saying that this new ban does not have a sunset. So every firearm that would be banned can be legally owned if it was purchased prior to the day the bill is in force. They state that it will grandfather existing weapons. In the bill there will be no mention of the 94 AWB.

My biggest concern is that the bill would not allow the sale or transfer of legally owned "high capacity magazines" which over time would eventually lead to consfication as individuals who owned the magazines died.

 

[Medic!]

It's in how you read it. It looks like they want to keep a 2013 bill from expiring in 10 years. But I wonder if they are trying to be sneeky and treat the 94-2004 federal ban as if it never ended. It's how you interpret it. I see the most simple way to take it. It just caught me as strange as they have no talk about a sunset to the 2013 bill except here. Heck in the end it may have a proposed 5 year or 20 year sunset. That's what made me think of a dual meaning in the way you can interperate this line. It says [ Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire] . Im reading it like this. [Eliminate the sunset on the origonal federal ban]. See? Could it not be interpreted this way? I admit I could be wrong. But I'm more woried about if I'm right.

 

[Kevinkris]

all the same i bet no one will come forward saying here's my gun. it will be like Australia where you cant buy any large size PVC pipe because people are burying their weapons.

 

[Blue Devil PA]

While trolling through the NY Firearms website, I saw many people wanting to fight this and others who will just not register or change their magazines. What was REALLY disturbing was the high number asking how to turn their magazines in (or convert) and the registration timeline. They are fighting and losing their rights before our very eyes. This state's battle was over before anyone but the liberals knew about it. They might get their rights back, but it will be a long uphill battle and God help them if one person carrying a gun even farts in public.

Now latest attempt by Feinstein to spread this disease across the country. This is the first of many and Washington and Oregon liberals are teeing up their shot at progressive stardom. If NY gun laws are passed here, what would you do?
Anyone who is on the fence and thinking "My gun isn't on the list" or more likely "I just wont register/give up my guns or magazines" has the wrong initial approach. What are you going to do? Shoot out in the boonies, hope you don't get a traffic ticket (and vehicle search) driving to your "secret" shooting spot. You wont be able to use your magazines at any local ranges, eventually there will be a snitch or even LEO looking to turn you in if you break out a full capacity magazine, and so on.

Most people are law-abiding folks with something to lose and if you really think about it would not last a day in today's penal system.

We need to stop this BEFORE it gets to be debated, because once you get it to Congress, all bets are off. We want our politicians to be so bubblegum-scared of voting for this travesty that they will be ducking Feinstein's phone calls until they throw dirt on her.

 

[ChrisOregon]

SKS isn't listed because its a rifle that ugly hag Feinstein claims is "protected hunting rifle". Well what happens when you change the stock or replace the factory fixed mag with a detachable? ILLEGAL!!!!

There's gonna be a whole lot of people out of work if this bs passes. Oh, and not sure if anyone heard there will be NO sunset on this bill.

 

[Father of four]

I like this one " or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. "

LOL - Glock 17/18 anyone ? :gun04:

Nobody has one of those ...

Guys, this will never pass. Still write, call and raise hell !

And Obama will be defeated in 2012. I am not so sure it want pass. I cant believe that the country actually voted for Obama to stay President. Unbelievable.

 

[Father of four]

O'yeah remember Obama care? I remember they claimed like 70% of the United States people didn't want it but....

 

[ThePhonMan]

Hold the phone....

So now that I'm waiting what seems like a lifetime for my suppressors so I can go out and shoot quietly like a good neighbor they want to outlaw "threaded barrels"?

One more example of why an unwillingness to inject logic or common sense into this "issue" is leading to a laundry list of "bad looking or sounding" items we must get rid of. Regardless of their purpose, we need to ban things we don't understand!!!

Perhaps a ban on crime in general would make life so much better. Let's make crime against the law and be done with it. Who's with me? (note the sarcasm)

 

[chemist]

Well in the midst of all the doom and gloom, I see one bright spot:
Kudos to our own local TNW Firearms of Vernonia for making the list! Eat your heart out, SKS fanboys.