I haven’t seen anything on the board yet, so we can use this thread to discuss the merits of the legislation.
As a law abiding gun owner, I’m opposed to this law. She is basically taking the 1994 Assault Weapons Bill and making it much worse. Instead of just rifles, handguns are now included. Instead of two “scary” features, only one is needed. There is also a registration element.
The ten round magazine rule for handguns is extremely out of touch. Many handguns are large capacity now, including one of mine. This law appears to force gun owners such as myself to either get rid of our firearm or submit to registration with a picture, fingerprints and ID.
But even worse is the notion of specifically listing which guns, by name, can be allowed and can not. There are 120 on the “naughty” list and 900 on the “nice” list. Granting this sort of gun by gun control is a very bad idea. You’re going to have firearms manufacturers needing to argue the merits of individual guns. The fact that the “good” weapons that are “used for hunting or sporting purposes” need to be listed by name as the proposal states is proof that the legislation doesn’t make sense. If there was any rhyme or reason to the proposal it would have measurable criteria rather than needing to list by model.
So it looks like more of the same from the gun banning crowd. AWB II, the sequel.
Yeah, just skimmed it so far, but seems equally idiotic and arbitrary…and probably have an equally dismal effect on preventing actual gun crime (the link further down the page that claims a ‘6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders’ is laughable. The way things are going, though, don’t be surprised if this horseshit doesn’t go through and get implemented.
Here are some specifics that Pelosi is suggesting…
As already stated, banning specifically named firearms is an indicator that the logic being used to determine legality is faulty.
The 10 round rule is going to criminalize a lot of existing firearms. Most models of 9MM .40 and other handguns come in larger than ten. Usually it’s only the “MA compliant” ones that have ten or less.
This one requires some reading around the lines. The 94 AWB required two of the five characteristics:
So it seems that the new list is the above, minus bayonet mounts and flash suppressors. But since the criteria is only one instead of two items ANY gun with a folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, or flash suppressor is banned.
This would seem to include youth model rifles and shotguns, since they often have a telescoping stock to accommodate younger and growing shooters.
Banning pistol grips includes most, if not all, home defense shotguns.
Am I reading this right? If I want to keep my weapon I need to fill out paperwork. What about the millions of gun owners who don’t do it? What’s the penalty for these people who are resistant to the idea, or who are lazy, or who just don’t know about it? What will the penalties be for this new class of criminals we create with this law? I’m guessing it will be millions if not tens of millions of people. Enforcing this would be similar in scope to the drug war.
Correction to the OP: The original AWB did include handguns. But looking at the criteria it was only small numbers of rare ones. This new proposal would include most modern handguns so it’s still a considerable step up from the original law.
Actually I’m not sure it does. The bill seems to refer specifically to “fixed magazines” which most handguns don’t have. Every pistol I’ve seen has a detachable magazine, so I think all this might require is swapping out large magazines in favor of 110-round magazines in order to keep the pistol legal. But I’m not completely sure - it’s confusingly worded.
My meaning is that business for them will be booming. They’ll need to quadruple in size. If this thing passes, they won’t have to worry about layoffs for a few decades.
You might be right about that. But yes, it’s so poorly worded there’s no way to know for sure. When in doubt I’m going to assume the worst, given that we’re dealing with a Pelosi proposal here.
Any idea what the hell this means:
Also, for those wondering what a “bullet button” is:
That was actually from Diane Feinstein’s page and its her proposal. I’ll find a link to her presser where she also wants to re-categorize ALL semi auto guns as Title II weapons making them fall under NFA regs.
All of those here and elsewhere crying ofr a ban should be excited that this legislation will at least be CALLED an “assault weapon” ban, even though it won take anything away from anybody.
Yes, this sounds like a warmed over version of the AWB, which - thanks to reasonable pro-gun folks like XT and Zeriel - I came to understand was a waste of time.
However, unless you have a better idea, I don’t think you can complain much if it gets passed. The national mood is clearly Something Must Be Done, and if you don’t do it then somebody like Pelosi will.
Well, not really. Rape is rape, but hunting people would still be hunting.
And once again, none of this would have prevented the Newtown massacre as it appears those guns were purchased legally and basically stolen. Having the legitimate owner go through all this does nothing when the weapons are then stolen.
Plus, even a novice can change a semi-auto mag in about 3 seconds. So showing up at your intended place of carnage with a 10 rounder in the weapon and 2 more 10 rounders in your pocket, instead of one 30 round magazine, will not not prevent anything, it will only add about 6 seconds to the total assault time.:rolleyes:
I’ve posted it before and I’ll continue to do so: if we wake up tomorrow and every single firearm has vanished into thin air and from then on we were only allowed to own single round muskets from 1776, the minute someone murdered somebody else with one (and in a country of 300+ million that would happen sooner than later) the antis would be screaming to ban the Muskets.
BTW I’m not necessarily in favor of gun control. But as a non-gun-owner, the 10 round limit sounds extremely reasonable. Can anyone share a scenario where having more than 10 rounds would be useful apart from a shooting spree? I’m not trying to be an asshole, I seriously just don’t understand.
You don’t think stopping for three seconds with your head down to change a magazine can change the flow of a spree-shooting? 2011 Tucson shooting - Wikipedia
Sure it sounds reasonable, but so does 12, 6, or 13. The point is that 10 rounds doesn’t make a gun any “safer” than 12. Reloads are trivial and as RNATB stated earlier, this move is solely to make it look like the Feds are doing SOMETHING while they are actually doing NOTHING.