• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

2013 firearm ban proposal text

Another point that has recently surfaced.

Some states may allow regular semi auto weapons that would (by this law) be classified as assault weapons, but do not allow NFA, so, unless those specific states amended their respective firearm laws, would all but ban anything that would be required to be NFA registered by default.

So that is another very valid concern for people in several states.

This is exactly why these politicians trying to infringe on our rights need to screw off. They're not doing anything but making a huge mess.

Why can't they just concentrate on securing our borders and balance the damn budget like they're supposed to do?
 
The text doesn't surprise me at all. I think we all knew that she would go for as much as possible. If anything gets done in DC I believe it will be along the lines of the '94 ban and I think mags will be back to 10 rounds again as a sell out. AR's and AK's may get extra attention in a new ban since most of the country seems to believe that are "automatic militarty" arms. I think most of us need to closely watch our state legislatures where even more draconian bans are likely to come from. California and NY seem at the forefront. I think some of the smarter, realistic states will actually address the causes of the mass shooting and try and prevent them by doing something about mental health issues, their meds also permitting armed LEO and/or teachers in the schools.

Any guns laws will further fracture and divide the federal government/nanny states and the states opposed to the socialist policies being dumped upon them.
 
Trying to keep the fight in NY as we speak.

Dear Gov. Cuomo.... I do NOT support confiscation and registration.
 
The word from some of the more pro-gun sources is that in the proposal even keeping said semi automatics would require the owner to be finger printed and photographed just like an NFA tax stamp. I will be surprised if this makes it through but you just never know. I am really starting to tire of this woman and her double speak. With any luck she will push too far with her proposal and will turn away most of the blue dog dems in the process costing her votes for this.
 
Cant believe this is 5 pages back... Could just be the site has been bus, i have been too.

Thanks for postin this John.
 
That was an interesting suggestion. I wonder how general public would react if we did say a million man march on DC armed? Take our trusty shotty, and carry legally on the capital, or even state capitals? Realistically show them what they are up against.

On second thought, it might not be beneficial....

Frank
 
To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear
arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

That just shows they do not care about our rights.
 
‘‘(38) The term ‘barrel shroud’—
‘‘(A) means a shroud that is attached to, or
partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a fire
arm so that the shroud protects the user of the fire
arm from heat generated by the barrel;

In other words...we don't give a F*** about gun owners safety....
 
Thanks for posting JohnA. It will take me awhile to get through it but it starts off with the line I copied below followed by a list of traitors to our nation.

To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear
arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

They should start it with:
To continue the erosion of rights we don't believe in, to take away the ability of the law abiding to protect themselves, and for other illicit reasons that our subjects need not know about until they are disarmed.
 
‘‘(38) The term ‘barrel shroud’—
‘‘(A) means a shroud that is attached to, or
partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a fire
arm so that the shroud protects the user of the fire
arm from heat generated by the barrel;

In other words...we don't give a F*** about gun owners safety....
Click to expand...

I saw the barrel shroud to and laughed. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, they seem to believe that our front hand holds the barrel while firing. Thus, we can fire and fire and fire our weapons of mass destruction. I looked into this before and this is the conclusion I came to.
 
I don't know the legal side of this but this guy thinks that the text would permit the banning of anything with a pistol grip etc.

Any thoughts?


A key gun law analyst who has published books on the issue of the Second Amendment and its rights and responsibilities for decades says the Feinstein gun ban bill is just exactly that, a gun ban bill.
Not, essentially, a plan to limit certain guns. Not a limit on the size of magazines. Not a plan for restrictions on those with certifiable mental instabilities, a ban on criminals’ access or a plan to encourage gun safety.
Alan Korwin is a nationally recognized expert resource on the issue of gun laws, and runs Bloomfield Press, which is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.
He said if the plan by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is made law, “any semiautomatic firearm with uses a magazine – handgun, rifle or shotgun – equipped with a ‘pistol grip,’ would be banned.”
He explained, “That sounds like a limitation, but it is not. A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as ‘a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.’”
He said, “In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked! Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)
“The list is meaningless tripe. It is camouflage for the real purpose of the bill. When the president said he is not going to take away your guns, well, Feinstein’s bill puts the lie to that. Magazine size does not matter. Brand name does not matter. It doesn’t matter if it’s black. If you can grip it, it’s banned under this bill.”
The bill, in fact, states, “‘Pistol grip’ means … any … characteristic that can function as a grip.”
That definition follows on the bill’s specific reference that a “pistol grip” is a banned component.
 
This B needs to banned from American soil.
 
ripjack13 said:
‘‘(38) The term ‘barrel shroud’—
‘‘(A) means a shroud that is attached to, or
partially or completely encircles, the barrel of a fire
arm so that the shroud protects the user of the fire
arm from heat generated by the barrel;

In other words...we don't give a F*** about gun owners safety....
Click to expand...

To me that means ANY long gun with a foregrip.
 
carbinemike said:
I don't know the legal side of this but this guy thinks that the text would permit the banning of anything with a pistol grip etc.

Any thoughts?


A key gun law analyst who has published books on the issue of the Second Amendment and its rights and responsibilities for decades says the Feinstein gun ban bill is just exactly that, a gun ban bill.
Not, essentially, a plan to limit certain guns. Not a limit on the size of magazines. Not a plan for restrictions on those with certifiable mental instabilities, a ban on criminals’ access or a plan to encourage gun safety.
Alan Korwin is a nationally recognized expert resource on the issue of gun laws, and runs Bloomfield Press, which is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country.
He said if the plan by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is made law, “any semiautomatic firearm with uses a magazine – handgun, rifle or shotgun – equipped with a ‘pistol grip,’ would be banned.”
He explained, “That sounds like a limitation, but it is not. A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as ‘a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.’”
He said, “In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked! Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)
“The list is meaningless tripe. It is camouflage for the real purpose of the bill. When the president said he is not going to take away your guns, well, Feinstein’s bill puts the lie to that. Magazine size does not matter. Brand name does not matter. It doesn’t matter if it’s black. If you can grip it, it’s banned under this bill.”
The bill, in fact, states, “‘Pistol grip’ means … any … characteristic that can function as a grip.”
That definition follows on the bill’s specific reference that a “pistol grip” is a banned component.
Click to expand...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/30/gun-l ... z2JY1x8R6P

I was reading this article (was posted in one of the archery sites I frequent). Yes, pretty damn scary. If you grip it, it is illegal. How do you shoot a gun, any gun, without gripping the grip? It is all smoke screens for a complete ban. Ban new guns. Violence doesn't stop? Remove the grandfather clause and ban the old guns. These bastards won't stop. It is like a steam roller headed downhill. Ain't gonna stop till it hits something very solid...
 
I know there were comments that the list was irrelevant but that is not true. It is a sales tactic to deceive the public. You put the most egregious weapons, from a liberals perspective, on the list so that when someone challenges the bill the liberal can state "how can you allow these awful weapons". It is a true diversionary tactic.

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top