New Assault Weapons Ban

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1

mac_attack
Junior Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:08 pm
Location: east texas

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by mac_attack »

i've emailed my congressman already on this.

but i think i will stock up on hi-capacity magazines and pick up a couple of firearms that could be banned just in case.
Liko81
Senior Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:37 pm

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by Liko81 »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

{snip}

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

{snip}

`(iv) Colt AR-15;
This lunacy passes, and everybody here who already owns an AR-15 platform rifle, in any caliber or configuration, made by any manufacturer, has just doubled their investment. It seems like this version of the bill paints in much broader strokes than the previous one.

I wonder under which provision of the bill M1A's would be banned, unless it would be this one:
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
It is hard to resist the temptation to brood over the call of Thomas Jefferson's that the tree of liberty required occasional watering with the blood of patriots. :mad5
The M1A is not a semi-auto version of an automatic firearm. The A3, which was select-fire, was not the original design. I do not know which statute bars the M1 except that many have a fixed magazine of more than 5 rounds, and many of them may have the ability to accept a detatchable mag as well. By the same token, since the Glock 17 was the original Glock, other Glocks cannot be considered semi-auto variants of the 18.
drw

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by drw »

ammoman.com has USGI 30 round AR15 magazines from Center Industries. $16.50 each if you buy in quantities of 10.
User avatar
The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 26885
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Liko81 wrote:The M1A is not a semi-auto version of an automatic firearm. The A3, which was select-fire, was not the original design. I do not know which statute bars the M1 except that many have a fixed magazine of more than 5 rounds, and many of them may have the ability to accept a detatchable mag as well. By the same token, since the Glock 17 was the original Glock, other Glocks cannot be considered semi-auto variants of the 18.
I don't know anything about the A3 (unless you're referring to the M1-A3 bolt action), but on a purely technical level, you might be correct. But I'll bet you that the nimrods who crafted this bill don't know that, and I'll also bet dollars to donuts that they don't approve of the M1A. Note that it is not on their list of approved semi-automatic weapons, such as the Browning BAR.

This Wikipedia page says that the M1A is a direct derivative of the M14, which had a select fire switch, and this Wikipedia page makes it clear that the M14 was it's own design. You or I could maintain that have said switch differentiates the M14 from a truly automatic weapon such as a .30 cal. machine gun, but my guess is that the crafters of both this and previous versions of the AWB don't make that distinction. I'll bet that their assumption is that a select fire capability with a full auto mode makes that gun an automatic weapon. Since the people who write these types of legislation are fundamentally ignorant about firearms, it is their pretzel logic that we'll have to live with - not reasoned and dispassionate logic.

By the way, every M14/M1A variant I've ever seen has a detachable magazine and can accommodate significantly higher capacity magazines than 5 rounds. Were you referring to the M1 Garand's fixed magazine?
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar
DoubleJ
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by DoubleJ »

M16-A3
FWIW, IIRC, AFAIK, FTMP, IANAL. YMMV.
Liko81
Senior Member
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:37 pm

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by Liko81 »

DoubleJ wrote:M16-A3
That wasn't what I was talking about. Turns out I was mistaken; I thought the M1A was the civilian variant of the M1 Garand, not the M14. In that case, yes, it's a semi-auto variant of a select-fire rifle.

When I said M1A3, turns out what I meant was the T20E2, which is a select-fire version of the M1 Garand.
DoubleActionCHL
Senior Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:12 pm

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by DoubleActionCHL »

Very sad. I see this (or I hope) as an election year effort to 'reach across the aisle'. McCain desperately wants the Democrats to accept him, and I strongly suspect his influence has reached these three 'Republicans.' While I doubt this bill will grow legs, I'd encourage everyone to contact these guys and your own representatives to let them know your feelings.
Image

http://www.doubleactionchl.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Houston, Texas

"Excuses are for tombstones. Get back in the fight."
--Me
User avatar
dukesean
Senior Member
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:39 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by dukesean »

Wrote a message to Sam Johnson today. At least he is always on the correct side of the arms debate.
-------------------------------------
Sean H.
NRA Life Member
TSRA
Sangiovese
Senior Member
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by Sangiovese »

I'm confused about a point in the high capacity ammo feeding devices ban portion.
(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(b), is amended by adding after paragraph (30) the following:

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
Wouldn't this then apply to any high cap magazines manufactured between when the first ban expired and the new one goes into effect (if it happens). So basically, any high cap magazine made after 1994 would all of a sudden become illegal?
NRA Endowment Member. Texas LTC Instructor. NRA certified Pistol & Home Firearm Safety Instructor - Range Safety Officer

Any comments about legal matters are general in nature and are not legal advice. Nothing posted on this forum is intended to establish an attorney-client relationship.
HankB
Senior Member
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Central TX, just west of Austin

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by HankB »

Kythas wrote:A new bill has been introduced in the US House of Representatives to reinstate the ban on assault weapons.

The Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 was introduced to the US House on 6/12/08.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:

Sponsored by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and co-sponsored by Reps. Michael Castle (R-DE), Mike Ferguson (R-NJ), and Christopher Shays (R-CT).
You can also add another Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) to the list of co-sponsors. :mad5

I just received a plea for funds from the GOP's "Senate Leadership Committe," asking that I make a donation to the Republican National Committee.

In my reply I informed them that so long as REPUBLICANS of ANY sort were sponsoring hostile legisation such as HR6257, there was NO WAY I was going to donate one red cent the RNC if there was any chance at all that it would help re-elect RINOS like Castle, Ferguson, Shays, Kirk and Ros-Lehtinen.
Original CHL: 2000: 56 day turnaround
1st renewal, 2004: 34 days
2nd renewal, 2008: 81 days
3rd renewal, 2013: 12 days
KD5NRH
Senior Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:25 am
Location: Stephenville TX

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by KD5NRH »

(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
How long before they notice that .17HMR can technically feed and fire in a .22WMR, and 17 Mach 2 in .22lr, thus effectively voiding this exemption? It's not a stretch compared to a lot of BATFE's other "determinations."
Last edited by KD5NRH on Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by stevie_d_64 »

I have to go back and look at the long and distinguished list of hunting rifles that have been added to the hit list...To which I wonder if there are any of the hunter crowd that aren't just kerplimped about this list...But I am just being sarcastic...again... ;-)

Bottom line...

Getting this passed may be more favorable in th epolitical climate possible coming our way (worst case)...Enforcement is the next big booger boo hoop to jump through...

But the amazing thing is something I predicted if something like this reared it's head again...

Notice there doesn't appear to be a "sunset"???
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
atxgun
Senior Member
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:12 am
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by atxgun »

stevie_d_64 wrote: Notice there doesn't appear to be a "sunset"???

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act--

(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years after that date.

point 2 sounds like a sunsetting clause... but hopefully this won't end up seeing the light of day to begin w/
rm9792
Senior Member
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:07 pm

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by rm9792 »

And this does what to curb the 290,000,000 guns already out there? This is like microstamping and smart guns, does nothing about the ones in existence already except make them worth more. I reall never thought politicians were stupid as most are college graduates but I am truly starting to wonder if they can walk and chew at the same time. I mean my 11 yr old already asked what would stop a bad guy from painting his gun orange!
atxgun
Senior Member
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:12 am
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: New Assault Weapons Ban

Post by atxgun »

I'd recommend everyone print this bill out and take copies to your favorite range or, gun store, gun smith, etc and see if they'll let you hang copies up encouraging others to write their congressmen and urge family/friends in other states and congressional districts to do the same.
Post Reply

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”