Fienstein to introduce Assault Weapon Ban

[John A.]

In the year after the '94 ban, they just took off bayo lugs and flash hiders and just kept making them.

Actually, it was unlawful to use a magazine that would hold more than 10 rounds if the weapon was made after Sept 13, 1994. That's where "preban weapons" came in. You could only use a magazine with a more than 10 round capacity in a gun made prior to the ban. That's why "preban weapons" demanded such a premium in price.

There were also a comprehensive list of weapons by name that were on the "assault weapon list".

It was also illegal to have folding stocks, collapsible stocks, threaded barrels, flash hiders, grenade launcher muzzle attachments, bayonet lugs, or any combination of 2 or more of these features. Even handguns that weighed 50 ounces or more were banned from the sale to civilians.

They were treated like machineguns. If you weren't in the police or military, you could not buy them period. Not online, not from the manufacturer. It's not like it is now where you can just call up a manufacturer and tell them "I'd like to buy a 30 round magazine and a threaded barrel".

Then, the manufacturer csr rep would say sure, please fax your LEO/Gov't letterhead requisition form to us and we'll call your purchasing agent to complete the order when we get it.

Don't try to fool yourself though my friend. Any future bill submission will include a lot more weapons, and a lot more features and transfer restrictions or prohibitions, and a lot more items this time around.

I don't expect there will be a sunset clause in it this time around either. I fully expect them to "go for broke". Ask for everything and take everything they can get.

 

[carbinemike]

Thanks for the reminder JohnA, especially on the mags. I can't believe I forgot that! I got my Mini-14 and 30 round mags then and the mags were $10 at gun shows! I had a hard time getting my Mini because we thought it would be banned but it didn't have enough "evil" features. The LGS where I got it was getting in 50 Mini's a month and it took me 3 months to get to the top of the list. It wasn't business as usual as I made out above. You could get an AR but it wasn't the same as '93.

Don't try to fool yourself though my friend. Any future bill submission will include a lot more weapons, and a lot more features and transfer restrictions or prohibitions, and a lot more items this time around.

I don't expect there will be a sunset clause in it this time around either. I fully expect them to "go for broke". Ask for everything and take everything they can get.

I agree 110%. The current Feinstein bill she's prepping is for all semi auto's, handgun and rifle. Anything with a detachable mag. They did learn from what they view as their mistakes of '94.

I don't expect them to get all they want but I could see 10+ rounds mags being a bone they throw them.

 

[carbinemike]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

i'll be damned if i ever give mine up.

I hope you don't have to but your Gov. Cuomo is talking forced buybacks and confiscation. Sounds like he'd like to pass Cali for the worst gun laws.


New York governor Andrew Cuomo says the state of New York is serious about gun confiscation. The Democrat and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development told an Albany radio station he plans to propose a package of draconian legislation during his State of the State address next month.

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said, according to the New York Times. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said.

 

[Tom396]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Raven, I seriously hope you are not forced to give up any of your firearm rights. I definitely don't think appeasement is the way to go, though. Doesn't work with extremists of any type. Take care. Tom Worthington.

 

[Rossignol]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Raven weren't we just talkin, you said tbhat guy at work approached you and mentioned he had a friend who would pay handsomely for your rifle. I thought you already sold it?

Look no further than Australlia to see how forced buy backs have turned out.

An assault weapons ban with no measurable effectiveness is the beginning. When it doesn't work, forced buy backs, a registry, confiscation, and criminalization of ownership is what is really wanted in the end.

Serious hunters would agree an AR isn't needed for hunting? That may be, not for big game, or even deer, but for property owners with livestock such as my inlaws, its perfect. They have rabbits and chickens for food that are sold and traded and have quite a bit of $$$ in it. Coyotes, fox, racoons, weasles and a few other critters can be a problem. Tell them that across 15 rolling acres it isn't a seriously perfect firearm to help protect their assets. It was a completely economic and reasonable investment.

I mention this only to illustrate one of the rifles reasonable uses and I'm certain thhere are plenty other examples, even for sport shooting, paper punching, competition, and what have you. These are all legit past times that the law abiding enjoy.

Really, the law abiding should have nothing to prove, those who want to ban and confiscate our arms, the burden of proof lies with them to prove the danger of our legally owned firearms and effectiveness of bans. We have no reason to budge or bend or to make concession. The facts, data, and statistical evidence are in our favor.

We're gonna have to stand together on this one, and we need a voice with a united platform because CA and NY have already revealed their true agenda.

 

[DHonovich]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

I will be leaving NY if they decide to pass any laws that restrict my gun ownership.

 

[oli700]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

They won’t and cants confiscate.....as I have always said it is logistically imposable to do a mass confiscation.......some of my guns are in my name, some not. The ones that were, I sold at the gun show.........who knows who has them.......you know what I mean, simple as that. People are paying so much for them I couldn’t resist. The guy who bought mine was about 6’, 200lbs, white with a blue flannel shirt and a Sthil hat
Anyone who willingly gives up their firearm ……..I guess you never really needed it in the first place.

As far as hunting there are many fish in the sea and in the hunting world there are many many firearms that can do it as well and better. I can kill rabbits and chickens all day with a 10/22, you don’t need an auto loading 223 for anything hunting because there are so many choices. Just being real

 

[oli700]

John's on it. I think it will be any auto loading weapon born with a pistol grip, detachable mags greater then 10, ammo purchase limits, background for large ammo purchases, background and paper trail at gun shows, no transfer of ownership of pre ban. AR's will be sprorterized like the saigas.....wont be anymore 20 round CZ pistols…..10 round Sp-01’s…..XDm to 10 rounds…

 

[Rossignol]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Oli, I agree with you, completely and in truthfulness have been selling firearms recently because, well, you can't eat a firearm and if the price is right, it makes ends meet.

I agree you don't need a .223. I'm just illustrating its usefullness and effectiveness in my situation as an argument that the rifle has no use outside of killing and murdering. Its been a good fit in our enviroment.

The bigger argument is that no anti has any business telling me or any other lawful gun owner who is legally able to own a firearm what he or she can and can't use intheir own circumstances as they see fit.

There are already a number of laws in existence to keep the honest, honest and law abiding. Murder is already illegal, but it still happens despite having been "banned". There is a much broader issue and a bigger fight coming, banning certain types of firearms is not at the heat of the agenda, and while you've always said it won't logistically be possible, its been done in other parts of the world. Such a ban would make many of us criminals over night.

It may not be logistically possible, not that they won't try.

 

[John A.]

"No transfer of ownership"

Yeah, that has been one of their big talking points the last few times that they've tried submitting this crap. They think that if it doesn't involve us directly that we're too stupid to realize that it won't affect the next generation or too selfish to care.

Wrong-O.

I hear there are several companies who make commercial time capsules

When I die, I won't need them anymore, and I always intended to give them to my heirs that are worthy of giving them to, just like some have been given to me by previous generations. All I can say is if they enact a no transfer law is bury me upside down because there will be one hell-of-a scavenger hunt with prizes when I kick the bucket.

That way I wouldn't directly be transferring nothing. They were just walking through the woods and tripped over a big box covered with leaves.

 

[oli700]

All I can if they enact a no transfer law is bury me upside down because there will be one hell of a scavenger hunt when I kick the bucket.

except for that high cap M9....the bear got to keep that

 

[BryanForbes]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

The "need" argument is bogus. Who gets to determine what I need? If someone else can determine that I don't "need" an AR-15, do I get to determine that they don't need a smartphone, cable, satellite, kids, French tipped nails, Botox, gold teeth, booze, cigarettes, an SUV, a $300,000 house, or any number of other things? The only person who determines my family's and my needs is me and my God. End of story.

 

[John A.]

All I can say if they enact a no transfer law is bury me upside down because there will be one hell of a scavenger hunt when I kick the bucket.

except for that high cap M9....the bear got to keep that

Yeah, the bear might take that one with him LOL

I guess I shouldn't be taking this too lightly because it is a serious matter. I am really concerned of what they're concocting.

 

[BryanForbes]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Also, I've used that comeback to the need argument recently (I just pick something random that I know they enjoy or have) and it shuts the other person right up on that train of thought. Remember, don't play their game and try to justify your need; take their game to its logical conclusion to show them how absurd it really is .

 

[oli700]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Oli, I agree with you, completely and in truthfulness have been selling firearms recently because, well, you can't eat a firearm and if the price is right, it makes ends meet.

I hear you my brother, been there done that.....hell my wife just found another job thank god. I wasnt starving but I was selling things to get things.....dont forget that a good firearm can feed you in the right place.....dont need 20 but just one good one

I agree you don't need a .223. I'm just illustrating its usefullness and effectiveness in my situation as an argument that the rifle has no use outside of killing and murdering. Its been a good fit in our enviroment.
.

And I agree with you 100% The rifle has a place in recreation and food gathering. I love an auto loading 223. Hardly anything offers such capability with such little trade off.

NEED is going to be such a key word in our future.....so many people in this country are soft. We don’t need so many things in life, just accustomed to having thing we want because in our society of working hard to get things we want is acceptable and fun and something to work towards.

Brother……step back for 2 seconds and look into how pathetic it is…..people literally going into debt for these rifles for no better reason then “because I might never get to buy one”. ….
Droves of people petrified to stand at the gun counter…..I have seen them.
Fish out of water, on the local news they were interviewing people at a LGS. The man they found was a normal looking guy holding an AR. “why are you here today?”…..”because I might not be able to buy one someday” as he holds up the rifle he points it down the aisle way, packed with people just like him, literally huddled up together with a lost look on their faces. The man grabbed the grip with his left hand , the forend with his right hand and brought the rifle up to his right shoulder and looked down the flat top with his left eye…probably didn’t know it didn’t have sights.
The camera panned at the counter at a line of about 25 background checks with ID and a credit card sitting on all of them….for no better reason then they might not get to buy one in their life. SO WHAT you never had one, never had an interest and didn’t care.
The gun store was literally packed with awesome firearms….30-30’s, any bolt action you want, ton of handguns, shotguns…..but people who never shot a bullet in their pathetic lives NEED an AR because they may never get the chance to buy one, they don’t deserve one IMHO I don’t care if they were born Americans or not. There is a difference in being an American And being born in America……sorry rambling now

The "need" argument is bogus. Who gets to determine what I need? If someone else can determine that I don't "need" an AR-15, do I get to determine that they don't need a smartphone, cable, satellite, kids, French tipped nails, Botox, gold teeth, booze, cigarettes, an SUV, a $300,000 house, or any number of other things? The only person who determines my family's and my needs is me and my God. End of story.

I understand where you are coming from and agree but I also know you don’t need an AR 15 to kill a chicken.
Technicalities are fun on the internet and in arguing point with your friends but when it comes to laws and big government you will not need an AR to kill a chicken …….you don’t need to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle, but you do because the government tells you too. You don’t need to wear a seat belt to drive a car but you do because the government tells you need to do it.



and your right, no one needs cigs,booze,tatoos,300,000 hoses or even cars for that matter. There are very few things one needs if you want to split hairs

 

[Tom396]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

They won’t and cants confiscate.....as I have always said it is logistically imposable to do a mass confiscation.......some of my guns are in my name, some not.

I don't think they will need to come and take them. As I've seen some pretty smart folks suggest, they don't need to physically come and take them, they just turn your neighbors on you, etc.

Step 1: A certain period of time is set (6 months? a year?) for you to voluntarily turn in or destroy any firearms you currently own. Maybe you are even given a set amount for each firearm you turn in (buyback).

Step 2: The time period ends. Now, gun ownership is illegal. Anyone seen with a firearm will be arrested and put in jail. Actually firing a weapon, for any reason, would bring an even longer sentence...even in self defense.

Step 3: A huge bounty is set for anyone who can bear witness against someone holding a firearm. Neighbor will be set against neighbor.

Step 4: After many years of this policy have been in place, then law enforcement is sent out to actually look for remaining firearm owners.

As radical and preposterous as it sounds, you got to admit, it would work. You would definitely not be shooting any of your firearms, even if you were able to hide them. Do I think it could happen? Very doubtful. But I don't think a true door to door confiscation would be necessary, if somebody really wanted our guns. We just can't let them get their way, while we still can. Take care. Tom Worthington.

 

[oli700]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

You think the murder rate is high now ?......people get killed for a lot less neighbor or not. You start to put a bounty on it and you will start to smell dead bodies, bank on it.

Lets say something like that went down.....as farfetched as it is because you’re talking ALL firearms. You just hide them till the day it’s time to fight....simple as that. Firearms will be back to their original 2A status….not shooting clay or shooting 3 gun not hunting(why your theory won’t fly) but for fighting a foreign or DOMESTIC government

 

[Rossignol]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Oli, you make good points and I can't argue against what it it takes to defend against varmints and predators, heck I've said on here several times that while my MIL owns an 870 express, her go to gun in the middle of the night is a Stevens 16 ga single shot with a 28" field barrel. Not too long ago took out a possum and a fox before that gettin into the chicken pen in the night. I understand. Just that when presented the opportunity, an AR vs (insert any other rifle) the price was right and it made sence in this circumstance.

That's our perogative and no one elses choice to make for us.

I also agree that the arguements may come to symantics and rewriting of definitions, (what is "is"?) Symantics and new definitions were part of the first assault weapons ban. Catagories that didn't exist priorbecamepart ofeveryday language. But whether or not its needed, people goin into debt, is not my business. Don't even care. You're absolutely right hough many of these people have no business bein around a firearm when they have no clue which end is up, again though, not my place to determne. That kind of legislation opens doors into many other aspects of everyday life that can be very intrusive into our personal and private lives. It means bigger, over reaching govt.

Personal accountability can't be legislated and in the end, resposible citizens pay the debt, monetarily and otherwise.

 

[BryanForbes]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Oli, I agree with you, completely and in truthfulness have been selling firearms recently because, well, you can't eat a firearm and if the price is right, it makes ends meet.

I hear you my brother, been there done that.....hell my wife just found another job thank god. I wasnt starving but I was selling things to get things.....dont forget that a good firearm can feed you in the right place.....dont need 20 but just one good one

I agree you don't need a .223. I'm just illustrating its usefullness and effectiveness in my situation as an argument that the rifle has no use outside of killing and murdering. Its been a good fit in our enviroment.
.

And I agree with you 100% The rifle has a place in recreation and food gathering. I love an auto loading 223. Hardly anything offers such capability with such little trade off.

NEED is going to be such a key word in our future.....so many people in this country are soft. We don’t need so many things in life, just accustomed to having thing we want because in our society of working hard to get things we want is acceptable and fun and something to work towards.

Brother……step back for 2 seconds and look into how pathetic it is…..people literally going into debt for these rifles for no better reason then “because I might never get to buy one”. ….
Droves of people petrified to stand at the gun counter…..I have seen them.
Fish out of water, on the local news they were interviewing people at a LGS. The man they found was a normal looking guy holding an AR. “why are you here today?”…..”because I might not be able to buy one someday” as he holds up the rifle he points it down the aisle way, packed with people just like him, literally huddled up together with a lost look on their faces. The man grabbed the grip with his left hand , the forend with his right hand and brought the rifle up to his right shoulder and looked down the flat top with his left eye…probably didn’t know it didn’t have sights.
The camera panned at the counter at a line of about 25 background checks with ID and a credit card sitting on all of them….for no better reason then they might not get to buy one in their life. SO WHAT you never had one, never had an interest and didn’t care.
The gun store was literally packed with awesome firearms….30-30’s, any bolt action you want, ton of handguns, shotguns…..but people who never shot a bullet in their pathetic lives NEED an AR because they may never get the chance to buy one, they don’t deserve one IMHO I don’t care if they were born Americans or not. There is a difference in being an American And being born in America……sorry rambling now

You're right on the money here. I have what I need to defend my family right now. I don't need any more, although I'd like more. An AR is on my list, but there are other things that come first (like bills, food, and diapers). On another note, because of this gun banning scare, we're going to have way more irresponsible gun owners out there who bought a weapon out of fear with no proper knowledge or respect for firearms. Hopefully this isn't the anti-gun agenda's plan: put weapons into untrained hands to increase the chance of deaths.

The "need" argument is bogus. Who gets to determine what I need? If someone else can determine that I don't "need" an AR-15, do I get to determine that they don't need a smartphone, cable, satellite, kids, French tipped nails, Botox, gold teeth, booze, cigarettes, an SUV, a $300,000 house, or any number of other things? The only person who determines my family's and my needs is me and my God. End of story.

I understand where you are coming from and agree but I also know you don’t need an AR 15 to kill a chicken.
Technicalities are fun on the internet and in arguing point with your friends but when it comes to laws and big government you will not need an AR to kill a chicken …….you don’t need to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle, but you do because the government tells you too. You don’t need to wear a seat belt to drive a car but you do because the government tells you need to do it.



and your right, no one needs cigs,booze,tatoos,300,000 hoses or even cars for that matter. There are very few things one needs if you want to split hairs

I completely understand what you're saying here. And given what you said above, you're right: an AR is not really a "need" for most people when a .30-30 or another gun would do. When Rossignol brought up using an AR for a varmint gun, I immediately thought that a .17 would be much cheaper and probably better suited (since it was, as I've been told, as a varmint gun) in most cases. However, who am I to determine someone else's need? Living in a free society (and as a Libertarian), I can't make those decisions for someone else (except my wife and kids).

Also, even with laws, I don't "need" to wear a helmet or seatbelt; I am coerced by force of law to do so. I think that's what you're getting at, but I'm just making sure we're on the same page. Plus, I like splitting hair and arguing semantics. Just ask my wife!

 

[Tom396]

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

A single mass shooting is what set the Australian gun ban into motion. I certainly hope it isn't attempted here, but folks who refuse to ignore history are often doomed to repeat it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoV7TgAXKO8

Take care. Tom Worthington