TexasCHLforum.com

This has failed to pass

psijac wrote:This has failed to pass

It was already brought to a vote?

psijac wrote:This has failed to pass

So now I see it is the familiar playbook, used by Feinstein and others: put a bill out there that is very draconian and cannot pass, asking for the whole enchilada. Now "compromise" for only half of the enchildada.

From http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.s ... tempt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Prozanski and Burdick said they expected to move forward with four bills dealing with the gun issue. They would:

--Ban guns in the Capitol. Under the measure, Prozanski said, those with a concealed handgun license could still bring a gun into the building with the permission of the legislative administrator or law enforcement.

--Expand background checks to also cover private sales and transfers between individuals. There would be an exemption for sales or transfers between immediate family members.

--Ban concealed handgun licensees from carrying guns onto school grounds. However school districts would be able to opt out of the ban under the measure.

--Require live-fire training to obtain a concealed handgun license. Prozanski said most courses for the license already require this training.

By the way, read the article: here is an example where open carriers will cause everyone to lose the right to carry in the Oregon Capital. Concealed carriers will pay the price for the open carriers disturbing the sheep and upsetting the Ruling Class.

C-dub wrote:

jimlongley wrote:“a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.” Somehow that cosmetic addition makes a gun an assault weapon.

Would include most rifles and many shotguns in the definition.

Sheer stupidity.

This part gets me too. Wouldn't it ban ALL rifles and shotguns because of the red parts? Even my 1903 Springfield has wood that partially encircles the barrel so I can hold it with my non-trigger hand and not be burned.

And what is a slide that encloses the barrel that is excluded? Is that free floating rails?

Not ALL, but right up there. My '03-A3 goes, and my Garand and M1 Carbine, but my shotgun's heat shield doesn't completely encircle the barrel (I checked) and I have, and have had, numerous guns that had handguards that did not COMPLETELY encircle the barrel.

Makes me wonder just how big a separation would be necessary to say that a handguard did not COMPLETELY encircle the barrel, 50%, 75%, 99%?

jimlongley wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jimlongley wrote:“a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.” Somehow that cosmetic addition makes a gun an assault weapon.

Would include most rifles and many shotguns in the definition.

Sheer stupidity.

This part gets me too. Wouldn't it ban ALL rifles and shotguns because of the red parts? Even my 1903 Springfield has wood that partially encircles the barrel so I can hold it with my non-trigger hand and not be burned.

And what is a slide that encloses the barrel that is excluded? Is that free floating rails?

Not ALL, but right up there. My '03-A3 goes, and my Garand and M1 Carbine, but my shotgun's heat shield doesn't completely encircle the barrel (I checked) and I have, and have had, numerous guns that had handguards that did not COMPLETELY encircle the barrel.

Makes me wonder just how big a separation would be necessary to say that a handguard did not COMPLETELY encircle the barrel, 50%, 75%, 99%?

Do vent holes count?

Jumping Frog wrote:So now I see it is the familiar playbook, used by Feinstein and others: put a bill out there that is very draconian and cannot pass, asking for the whole enchilada. Now "compromise" for only half of the enchildada.

From http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.s ... tempt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Prozanski and Burdick said they expected to move forward with four bills dealing with the gun issue. They would:

--Ban guns in the Capitol. Under the measure, Prozanski said, those with a concealed handgun license could still bring a gun into the building with the permission of the legislative administrator or law enforcement.

--Expand background checks to also cover private sales and transfers between individuals. There would be an exemption for sales or transfers between immediate family members.

--Ban concealed handgun licensees from carrying guns onto school grounds. However school districts would be able to opt out of the ban under the measure.

--Require live-fire training to obtain a concealed handgun license. Prozanski said most courses for the license already require this training.

By the way, read the article: here is an example where open carriers will cause everyone to lose the right to carry in the Oregon Capital. Concealed carriers will pay the price for the open carriers disturbing the sheep and upsetting the Ruling Class.

Yep, that's what I've been saying. Its how they do business when they can't get their stuff rammed through...they still put it out there and then when/if it fails, put out the "compromise". Because now the other side HAS to give in because if they don't they aren't "reasonable". And who doesn't want to be seen as "reasonable", right? Why, only crazies and extremists and those who WANT little children to die, blah, blah, blah.

These two out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" encompass what they are doing with this stuff. Scare our side into thinking they will, or might, get an AWB passed...then when they can't, yank it back and put out the lesser stuff that still nets them a "win".

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

They are getting EVERYTHING they want with this current president and then more. So much for freedom and what our founding father's wanted for our nation. They expect us to just take whatever they dish out as our class doesn't rebel.

They expect us to just take whatever they dish out as our class doesn't rebel.

Yet.

Jumping Frog wrote:So now I see it is the familiar playbook, used by Feinstein and others: put a bill out there that is very draconian and cannot pass, asking for the whole enchilada. Now "compromise" for only half of the enchildada.

From http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.s ... tempt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Prozanski and Burdick said they expected to move forward with four bills dealing with the gun issue. They would:

--Ban guns in the Capitol. Under the measure, Prozanski said, those with a concealed handgun license could still bring a gun into the building with the permission of the legislative administrator or law enforcement.

--Expand background checks to also cover private sales and transfers between individuals. There would be an exemption for sales or transfers between immediate family members.

--Ban concealed handgun licensees from carrying guns onto school grounds. However school districts would be able to opt out of the ban under the measure.

--Require live-fire training to obtain a concealed handgun license. Prozanski said most courses for the license already require this training.

By the way, read the article: here is an example where open carriers will cause everyone to lose the right to carry in the Oregon Capital. Concealed carriers will pay the price for the open carriers disturbing the sheep and upsetting the Ruling Class.

Pride goeth before the fall. I want open carry as much as the next guy, but why is it that some OC activists are their own (and ours) worst enemies? The lack of foresight or an understanding of how other people think and will react shows an incredible lack of wisdom some times. They are blinded by the rightness of the cause into not seeing any potential consequences of their actions in any kind of realistic way. Even Martin Luther King Jr. knew when to press home the attack, and when to practice discretion, and there is no doubting his commitment to or the rightness of his cause. I'm afraid that discretion is not part of the skill set of some gun rights activists, and in failing to exercise it properly, the end up screwing it up for everybody.

It ain't over yet. http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2013/02/ ... bscriber=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is that Oregon USA or Cuba?

jimlongley wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jimlongley wrote:“a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.” Somehow that cosmetic addition makes a gun an assault weapon.

Would include most rifles and many shotguns in the definition.

Sheer stupidity.

This part gets me too. Wouldn't it ban ALL rifles and shotguns because of the red parts? Even my 1903 Springfield has wood that partially encircles the barrel so I can hold it with my non-trigger hand and not be burned.

And what is a slide that encloses the barrel that is excluded? Is that free floating rails?

Not ALL, but right up there. My '03-A3 goes, and my Garand and M1 Carbine, but my shotgun's heat shield doesn't completely encircle the barrel (I checked) and I have, and have had, numerous guns that had handguards that did not COMPLETELY encircle the barrel.

Makes me wonder just how big a separation would be necessary to say that a handguard did not COMPLETELY encircle the barrel, 50%, 75%, 99%?

Doesn't have to completely encircle. It says partially or completely. Even though my put the sporterized stock on the Springfield 1903 by Remington I now have I think it still falls into the definition they have outlined. Does it not?

Excaliber wrote:This battle is about a lot more than gun rights, and looking away from where these folks are trying to take us will most certainly not keep us from arriving there.

C-dub wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

C-dub wrote:

jimlongley wrote:“a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.” Somehow that cosmetic addition makes a gun an assault weapon.

Would include most rifles and many shotguns in the definition.
Sheer stupidity.

This part gets me too. Wouldn't it ban ALL rifles and shotguns because of the red parts? Even my 1903 Springfield has wood that partially encircles the barrel so I can hold it with my non-trigger hand and not be burned.

And what is a slide that encloses the barrel that is excluded? Is that free floating rails?

Not ALL, but right up there. My '03-A3 goes, and my Garand and M1 Carbine, but my shotgun's heat shield doesn't completely encircle the barrel (I checked) and I have, and have had, numerous guns that had handguards that did not COMPLETELY encircle the barrel.

Makes me wonder just how big a separation would be necessary to say that a handguard did not COMPLETELY encircle the barrel, 50%, 75%, 99%?

Doesn't have to completely encircle. It says partially or completely. Even though my put the sporterized stock on the Springfield 1903 by Remington I now have I think it still falls into the definition they have outlined. Does it not?

My guess is that this is talking about pump action guns, which requires a manual reload and a pull of the trigger. But, then lever actions are still considered unlawful under that rule.