Re: Dems introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TSimonetti
Ban on thumbhole stock was in Feinstein's 2013 ban, but has curiously been spared in the 2017 ban, unless they consider those stocks to have a pistol grip.(which they essentially do have)
It looks like M1 Carbine Paratrooper stocks are a banned feature under the 2017 bill. Only M1 carbines with standard stocks are exempted from the ban.
I get the impression that this bill is really an attempt to initiate a magazine limitation. A major difference between this bill and the Clinton ban from the 90s is the Clinton ban allowed magazines made prior to the ban to be transfered and sold. Over ten round magazines made after the ban could only be sold to law enforcement and had to be marked for law enforcement only. The current bill bans transfer of over ten round magazines. If this bill had a chance of passing at the current time, her and her staff would adjust it so it resembles the gun laws of NY or CA. It also should be noted that prior to Sandy Hook New York and Connecticut had state wide "assault weapons ban" in place that resembled the federal 90s Clinton ban. Its was pretty much unenforceable. After Sandy Hook both of those states revised their laws making them much stricter. The lesson here is should they ever pass a water down law, they could always add to it later, and all its going to take is one massacre and turn coat republicans.
Re: Dems introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TSimonetti
...It looks like M1 Carbine Paratrooper stocks are a banned feature under the 2017 bill. Only M1 carbines with standard stocks are exempted from the ban.
I was going to mention its a good thing they are preventing all of the mass shootings committed with M-1 Carbines, but damn didn't I find one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Edward_Pough
I still don't think the local gang would know what a .30 carbine round is.
Re: Dems introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carson
I was going to mention its a good thing they are preventing all of the mass shootings committed with M-1 Carbines, but damn didn't I find one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Edward_Pough
I still don't think the local gang would know what a .30 carbine round is.
It's ten less than a Glock foty yo!
Re: Dems introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 Bill
Wow, I didn't realize my M1 Carbine was so safe that it's approved by Diane Feinstein! I'm gonna go celebrate by buying a shit-ton of 30-round Korean mags and a case of ammo! :D
Re: Dems introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagleclaw
I get the impression that this bill is really an attempt to initiate a magazine limitation. A major difference between this bill and the Clinton ban from the 90s is the Clinton ban allowed magazines made prior to the ban to be transfered and sold. Over ten round magazines made after the ban could only be sold to law enforcement and had to be marked for law enforcement only. The current bill bans transfer of over ten round magazines. If this bill had a chance of passing at the current time, her and her staff would adjust it so it resembles the gun laws of NY or CA. It also should be noted that prior to Sandy Hook New York and Connecticut had state wide "assault weapons ban" in place that resembled the federal 90s Clinton ban. Its was pretty much unenforceable. After Sandy Hook both of those states revised their laws making them much stricter. The lesson here is should they ever pass a water down law, they could always add to it later, and all its going to take is one massacre and turn coat republicans.
I wonder about the legality of grandfathering. If they ban the transfer of grandfathered mags, they're not taking the mags themselves, but they're taking the cash value of the mags from me, and taking the mags, or the cash value of the mags, from my heirs. Any legal experts care to comment?
Re: Dems introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scruff
I wonder about the legality of grandfathering. If they ban the transfer of grandfathered mags, they're not taking the mags themselves, but they're taking the cash value of the mags from me, and taking the mags, or the cash value of the mags, from my heirs. Any legal experts care to comment?
they're taking any cash you have as civil asset forfeiture, which does not require a crime or warrant and will not be returned regardless. then they are taking the magazines. and they'll even be taking your corpse for some false flag event.
:)
not a legal expert though.
Re: Dems introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scruff
Wow, I didn't realize my M1 Carbine was so safe that it's approved by Diane Feinstein! I'm gonna go celebrate by buying a shit-ton of 30-round Korean mags and a case of ammo! :D
But if it had a folding wire thingy she wouldn’t approve. Ironic isn’t it.
I am still working off of some CMP Aguilla. Not a big fan of the Korean mags though.
Re: Dems introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scruff
I wonder about the legality of grandfathering. If they ban the transfer of grandfathered mags, they're not taking the mags themselves, but they're taking the cash value of the mags from me, and taking the mags, or the cash value of the mags, from my heirs. Any legal experts care to comment?
CA had a similar law in since the 90s. After Sandy Hook Connecticut also passed a similar law. Both withstood court challenges. However because they are only state laws maybe an argument was made that if a current owner living in one of those states doesn't want their legally owned over ten round magazines he can sell them out of state. Of course, if its federal law that argument wouldn't apply.
Re: Dems introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hodgie
Just ordered mine. I will the guy wearing it at the million firearms owners march in WDC if this is even being considered by our elected officials with an R behind their names.
I have this bumper sticker on my truck.