Gun laws

[David]

Originally Posted by clockwork

basically there trying to ban all the weapons on the list which include single shot as well as black powder other wise they would not name them from my experiance. undar appendix A covers full auto as well as semi auto under the amended then it goes on to cover the restlike lever & slide then bolt action ECT.

Again, i might be misreading this, but it does seem to say that the weapons on the list are NOT subject to this ban. Please read the section i have cited again. That is what it says, is it not.
This is a reauthorization of an ASSAULT WEAPONS ban. I think this ban is already in place and this bill serves to renew said ban. That is why it is a RE-authorization, no? It is not aimed at these other weapons as far as i can tell.

[David]

Here is a little bit more of this bill. I have bolded certain words for better understanding.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
‘(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.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

The first part bolded is "paragraph (1)". Please note that this entire section deals with weapons that are exempt from this bill, including those listed in appendix A.
The last part even assures us that even if the firearm is not on the appendix A list, it may still be exempt from this bill if it meets the criteria.

[Ed]

Lists of things that the government "allows" us to have makes me nervous.

The woman pushing this bill lost her husband to the nut who killed those folks on the Long Island RR some years ago. She has been persuing this since then.

The bill is ipso facto dishonest since it refers to a definition of assault rifles that is aesthetic. The gun banners in the US have been monkeying with commenly accepted terminology to demonize virtually every firearm. I have seen references to "assault pistols" for example.

This

‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Includes every semi automatic weapon in existence. Every one.

This is the aesthetic BS

‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘(v) a grenade launcher;

These are things that are absolutely meaningless.

This

SEC. 3. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(a), is amended by adding after subsection (v) the following:

‘(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

suggests that one would have to trust the government enough to tell them that you have such magazines and get "permission" to keep them.

It also suggests that bad guys cannot do High School level msheetmetal work.

This is BS window dressing:

SEC. 4. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) STUDY- The Attorney General shall investigate and study the effect of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) REPORT- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and determinations made in the study under subsection (a).

They did such a thing in NJ some time ago. They found that the law did zero, nada, zilch. The law is still on the books because "it can't hurt".

I will refrain from dealing with the logical errors in this law.

Jesus. And people fall for it.

[Ed]

It's worse than I thought.

The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400?

There are thousands of different firearms available.

This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

[Ed]

Re reading it it seems that there are certain ambiguities.

For example, my m1 carbine is an antique (unless that definition changes) but it can (as any clip fed gun can) accept a clip > 5 rounds. So which trumps what? And for how long?

[David]

Originally Posted by Ed

It's worse than I thought.

The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400?

There are thousands of different firearms available.

This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

[clockwork]

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

[clockwork]

according to wikipeda C&R goes back 50 yrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

[Ed]

Originally Posted by clockwork

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

The BAR is an NFA weapon. ie. a sevective fire weapon. It is handled under a completely different set of laws. But ... maybe not.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

Ummm I collect them.

Seriously, assault waepons are already strictly controlled. And have been for ages.

What they are saying is that hunting weapons with un-pc looks are to be controlled. That's a non-starter.

BTW, semi auto .223 weapons that are wrongly termed "assault weapons" are widely used for target shooting, varment shooting and are avidly collected.

[BBJW]

Originally Posted by David

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

[David]

Originally Posted by BBJW

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though.

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by BBJW

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

Its interesting you cite the 'sword ban' in the UK, as it clearly WAS an example of 'bad lawmaking'.
If we look at the figures (roughly) which led to the ban, if memory serves, we are talking about up to 60 000 incidents per year involving attacks with bladed weapons (worse case figures) in England and Wales.
However we are talking about approximately 5 or 6 actual deaths per year from attacks with the banned 'Samurai' class of reproduction swords.
That compares with many, many hundreds of deaths from 'stabbings' amongst which the preferred weapons are cheap chinese kitchen carving knives.
Statistically, more people are killed in the UK every year by: Boiled sweets, peanuts or wearing unsafe slippers.

Now for purposes of this discussion, the reason why the UK sword ban is an interesting example of lawmaking is that it is a headline grabbing attempt by a government to address a real problem with a ridiculous token law.

And introducing 'a little' gun control in the US is like the 'sword' ban here.
Like throwing a deckchair off of the Titanic.

So what do governments do?
Ours sees a problem with knife crime, and a public expectation of 'tough new laws to combat it' so is scared into banning something which will make no difference whatsoever.

Can I ask you, how many guns do you own?
If your government actually did decide to 'take the bull by the horns' and bring in large limits on gun ownership, and say for example they passed a law by which you were only allowed to own a side by side shotgun, for purposes of killing animals on your land, would you be prepared to turn in your other guns and accept government compensation? (which is effectively what was done in the UK).

Second part of the question is of course, even IF (which I serious doubt will ever happen) they did do that, and everyone legally owning guns did turn them in. How the hell would any administration tackle the millions of illegal weapons?

From an outsiders POV it sadly looks like any gun control with any chance of actually being passed into law in the States is just going to be at best a coat of paint on the golden gate?

Its obvious how strongly you feel about your 'right' to own guns, and clearly at least a sizeable minority of Americans agree with you. But by the same token, your experience of guns is going to be totally different from many other Americans. But surely nobody can argue that the US does have a huge problem with guns being used in violent crime, so from a pro-gun POV, how would you tackle it?

Regards
Gene