Firearms enthusiasts. PLEASE READ!!!

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by salt210
http:///forum/post/3037507
not true. if the ban was put back into place it Would restrict what guns you can own. the politicians learned from their mistakes last time about the wording used. if the ban was put back into place eric holder would have the right to say what gun is legal and what is not and he would not have to ask anyone for their say-so on it.
Again, the guns on the '94 list are primarily what you consider assault-type weapons. It didn't include hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, or any kind of what I'd call 'normally purchased' handguns. Even the assault weapons they do list, they had to meet at least two or three conditions before they were deemed illegal. An AR-15 couldn't have a collapsible stock, bayonet holder, or Grenade Launcher attached. There's sites online that sell specific versions of the AR-15 that are 'Anti '94 Gun Ban'. Their specifically built to where they are legal to sell even if the ban were put back in place.
After the debacle in DC, you're not going to see any other major bans come around that would limit the purchase of guns you would normally buy for sport or home protection. A precedence was set in DC, and if any state or city tried to initiate a similar ban, the gun activist lawyers would just use that case to stop it in its tracks.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by salt210
http:///forum/post/3037507
not true. if the ban was put back into place it Would restrict what guns you can own. the politicians learned from their mistakes last time about the wording used. if the ban was put back into place eric holder would have the right to say what gun is legal and what is not and he would not have to ask anyone for their say-so on it.
Except the US Supreme Court

 

[orion3814]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3037304
This is a prime example of why many areas around the country have a shortage of ammo. Instead of getting just what you need, you hoard this shop's entire stock because some paranoid nutcases like Limbaugh are putting in your mind that the current administration will take away all your guns. Keep up the good work. Just don't complain when the next time you go to that shop, the same box of ammo costs $50 because the dealer figures he can get that price because of this ammo shortage fear.

lol he had plenty of everything else the stw rounds were on sale cause they do not move not many people have a gun chambered for a 7mm stw
as faer as buying more i dont think so i have enough to last a while and i reload so its all good i dont target practice often and when i do sight a rifle in it usually takes less than 3 shots so i am not worried loolol

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3037643
Again, the guns on the '94 list are primarily what you consider assault-type weapons. It didn't include hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, or any kind of what I'd call 'normally purchased' handguns. Even the assault weapons they do list, they had to meet at least two or three conditions before they were deemed illegal. An AR-15 couldn't have a collapsible stock, bayonet holder, or Grenade Launcher attached. There's sites online that sell specific versions of the AR-15 that are 'Anti '94 Gun Ban'. Their specifically built to where they are legal to sell even if the ban were put back in place.
After the debacle in DC, you're not going to see any other major bans come around that would limit the purchase of guns you would normally buy for sport or home protection. A precedence was set in DC, and if any state or city tried to initiate a similar ban, the gun activist lawyers would just use that case to stop it in its tracks.

So...
The folding stock paratrooper model M-1 Carbine ( 15+ round detachable magazine, folding stock, sub-rifle calibre) which dropped on D Day is banned by this? One of the guns that won WWII is illegal?

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3037822
So...
The folding stock paratrooper model M-1 Carbine ( 15+ round detachable magazine, folding stock, sub-rifle calibre) which dropped on D Day is banned by this? One of the guns that won WWII is illegal?
I don't think that just because a weapon was instrumental in winning a war, it can't be illegal. After all, it is illegal to have fissionable quantities of plutonium, yet it was also responsible in large part for winning WWII.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3037643
After the debacle in DC, you're not going to see any other major bans come around that would limit the purchase of guns you would normally buy for sport or home protection. A precedence was set in DC, and if any state or city tried to initiate a similar ban, the gun activist lawyers would just use that case to stop it in its tracks.
This is absolutely 100% WRONG. There is litigation in DC and California battling this very issue. Ca BANS certain firearms that are 100% legal to own in EVERY OTHER STATE. These are everyday handguns commonly used for home protection. Some handguns simply vary from their legal counterpart in color only, but because the manufacturer is REQUIRED BY LAW to pay to have the firarm retested in a different color, it is not on Kommiefornia's "approved handgun" roster.
Have you been to DC lately and tried to buy a handgun?
"In December 2008, Phil Mendelson and the rest of the DC City Council enacted additional arbitrary and capricious standards for gun registration that have barred (1) registration of the same handgun the Supreme Court ordered DC to register last year for Mr. Heller, (2) registration of another handgun based merely upon its color, (3) registration of another handgun because the manufacturer did not pay a fee to California, and (4) re-registration of certain rifles merely because they have scary pistol grips or some other cosmetically offensive feature. A federal lawsuit challenging this scheme was filed two weeks ago."
"In a federal lawsuit filed today by civil rights attorney Alan Gura, three DC residents seek relief from DC's onerous and odious handgun registration scheme.
Under the statute adopted by the DC Council last December, DC now bans many ordinary and common handguns based upon silly criteria such as the color of the gun."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...40.html?sub=AR

 

[socal57che]

Orion, I had a stainless steel Savage 110 chambered in 7mm STW. It was awesome. Kind of like a 7mm mag on steroids. I traded it for a stainless 24" floated AR upper assy.

 

[orion3814]

ohh yea one hell of around hot as hell lol
was hunting on the res with my brother up in owyhee nv one night and every shot looked like a tracer this was about 5 years ago
got 2 mules that night
on the res it is legal for us to hunt whenever we want to because not alot of us hunt we spread the meat out over the elders when we get back to town not a lot of jobs up there

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3037822
So...
The folding stock paratrooper model M-1 Carbine ( 15+ round detachable magazine, folding stock, sub-rifle calibre) which dropped on D Day is banned by this? One of the guns that won WWII is illegal?
This is the criteria for banned weapons from the '94 Ban Law:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
So if your paratrooper model M-1 Carbine doesn't also have a Pistol grip, or Bayonet mount, or
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher, then you can buy them at your heart's content if the Ban were reinstated today.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/3037858
This is absolutely 100% WRONG. There is litigation in DC and California battling this very issue. Ca BANS certain firearms that are 100% legal to own in EVERY OTHER STATE. These are everyday handguns commonly used for home protection. Some handguns simply vary from their legal counterpart in color only, but because the manufacturer is REQUIRED BY LAW to pay to have the firarm retested in a different color, it is not on Kommiefornia's "approved handgun" roster.
Have you been to DC lately and tried to buy a handgun?
"In December 2008, Phil Mendelson and the rest of the DC City Council enacted additional arbitrary and capricious standards for gun registration that have barred (1) registration of the same handgun the Supreme Court ordered DC to register last year for Mr. Heller, (2) registration of another handgun based merely upon its color, (3) registration of another handgun because the manufacturer did not pay a fee to California, and (4) re-registration of certain rifles merely because they have scary pistol grips or some other cosmetically offensive feature. A federal lawsuit challenging this scheme was filed two weeks ago."
"In a federal lawsuit filed today by civil rights attorney Alan Gura, three DC residents seek relief from DC's onerous and odious handgun registration scheme.
Under the statute adopted by the DC Council last December, DC now bans many ordinary and common handguns based upon silly criteria such as the color of the gun."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...40.html?sub=AR
Only in Cali..

Isn't your backwards-thinking state also the only state in the country that requires some special screwy emissions controls on all the vehicles registered there? Don't see people rushing out to buy less restrictive cars everywhere else in the country.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3038290
Only in Cali..

Isn't your backwards-thinking state also the only state in the country that requires some special screwy emissions controls on all the vehicles registered there? Don't see people rushing out to buy less restrictive cars everywhere else in the country.

It starts here and spreads like a disease. 3 of the cases mentioned are in Washington DC. DC denied a registration due to the COLOR of a handgun. How friggin gay is that?
"A D.C. woman filed suit in U.S. District Court yesterday, claiming that the city would not let her register a pistol because of its color."
St Louis, Missouri has vehicle emissions testing as do many large cities and the number continues to grow.
The Paratrooper carbine that was mentioned would be banned as it has a detachable magazine, a folding stock and a bayonet lug. Not a bayonet, mind you, but a lug.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3038290
Only in Cali..

Isn't your backwards-thinking state also the only state in the country that requires some special screwy emissions controls on all the vehicles registered there? Don't see people rushing out to buy less restrictive cars everywhere else in the country.

As a matter of fact when California set an emissions standard it generally becomes the national standard unfortunately. Depending on the particular car there may not be any difference between the 49 state model and the Cali version
California "closed the assault weapons loophole", you really think the gun grabbers wont go for a more perfect ban next time?

 

[bionicarm]

Everyone talks about the gun restrictions in Cali and DC. Looking at this NRA web site, it appears there are many other states and cities across the nation that prohibit a nonresident to carry or transport a firearm while in their jurisdiction. Why don't the gun activist scream about this?
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=59

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3038454
Everyone talks about the gun restrictions in Cali and DC. Looking at this NRA web site, it appears there are many other states and cities across the nation that prohibit a nonresident to carry or transport a firearm while in their jurisdiction. Why don't the gun activist scream about this?
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=59
Because cities and states have the right to pass laws concerning the carrying of guns in cars. If you don't like a particular state's laws don't go there.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3037855
I don't think that just because a weapon was instrumental in winning a war, it can't be illegal. After all, it is illegal to have fissionable quantities of plutonium, yet it was also responsible in large part for winning WWII.

Yet the paratrooper ( or his family) who dropped in on Adolph could not own the firearm he was entrusted with 60+ years ago.
What happended to the freedom that soldier fought for?

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3038419
As a matter of fact when California set an emissions standard it generally becomes the national standard unfortunately. Depending on the particular car there may not be any difference between the 49 state model and the Cali version
California "closed the assault weapons loophole", you really think the gun grabbers wont go for a more perfect ban next time?
They'll try to pass "emission standards" on firearms to close the loophole.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3038280
This is the criteria for banned weapons from the '94 Ban Law:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
So if your paratrooper model M-1 Carbine doesn't also have a Pistol grip, or Bayonet mount, or
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher, then you can buy them at your heart's content if the Ban were reinstated today.

Its got a bayonet lug, flash suppressor.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3038672
Because cities and states have the right to pass laws concerning the carrying of guns in cars. If you don't like a particular state's laws don't go there.
My point is all these people are raising a stink about these gun restrictions in Cali and DC, but don't seem to care if those same restrictions occur in all these other cities and states around the country. What happens if I wanted to move to one of these places (trust me, I don't)? I legally purchased my 9mm at a gun shop in Texas, and had a background check at the FEDERAL level that said I could buy the weapon. So I decide to move to Cali to live by the beach. I'm no longer able to own that gun because it's banned in Cali, yet the Federal Govt. allowed me to buy it in the first place?

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3038787
So I decide to move to Cali to live by the beach. I'm no longer able to own that gun because it's banned in Cali, yet the Federal Govt. allowed me to buy it in the first place?
Nothing says you cant bring it. You could bring it to Ca and legally own it while I cannot purchase it here. Messed up isn't it?
The only reason you would not be allowed to bring it is if it was considered an assault weapon or violated another Ca state law. I had to leave a .22 cal pistol in Missouri because the original design of the weapon used a nut to fasten the barrel to the frame. Threaded barrels get an automatic ride to the AW list and to posess one that is not registered is a felony. The registration window closed years ago on AWs.
States are allowed to impose stiffer regulations that the feds, just not the other way around...assuming they don't encroach on federally guaranteed rights. Some states push this to the limit. These states are being focused on. That's why the articles you found on the NRA Legislative Action web page exist in the first place.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3038787
My point is all these people are raising a stink about these gun restrictions in Cali and DC, but don't seem to care if those same restrictions occur in all these other cities and states around the country. What happens if I wanted to move to one of these places (trust me, I don't)? I legally purchased my 9mm at a gun shop in Texas, and had a background check at the FEDERAL level that said I could buy the weapon. So I decide to move to Cali to live by the beach. I'm no longer able to own that gun because it's banned in Cali, yet the Federal Govt. allowed me to buy it in the first place?
None of those laws banned a gun. It said you were restricted in how you could carry it in a car. Most of us "right wing gun nuts" have no problem with reasonable laws. I think you saw a lot of gun owners criticizing the Chicago handgun ban just like the DC and California bans.