Feinstein's plan bans any gun with a 'grip'?

[Oh Shoot]

thehighroad.org
 
I was not sure if it is proper to link a website like that.

 
Ah, the .org,  by the original guy, I believe. You're not promoting it or anything, s'ok methinks ...
 

Hey I have read a lot from you. Much respect for your thoughts.

 
Thankee, I'm proud to still have any thoughts at all. ;)

 

...What do you think of my grip law interpretation? Too "tinfoil"?

 

Frankly yeah. As crazed as the bill is, it's pretty clear what "pistol grip" is intended as within it. Hell, half the people that are willing to vote for it probably have a rifle or shotgun with the kind of "pistol grip" you're talking about. Matter of fact, to pretty much prove it, the same "pistol grip" wording was in the '94 ban, and they didn't of course come into play.

 

- OS

Edited January 31, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest sculpinyakker]

No problem. I, expecting the worst, am rarely surprised. Folks who know me say I am too literal and analytical, but words mean specific things, making it easier to understand each other. I just thought I would put that idea out there for folks to ponder. I can envision lawyers saying that arms manufacturers use that term, thus the proper meaning, thus most long arms illegal if the laws pass... :tinfoil:  :hiding:

[m16ty]

I agree with Oh Shoot. It won't pass as written. I think even Feinstein knows this. She also knows if you throw enough crap at the wall some of it is bound to stick.

 

The Bill is mainly playing to her liberal voters in her district. She knows it won't pass but she can go back and tell her voters that she tried and hoping at least some of it will make it through.

[Sam1]

They are not trying to ban a pistol with just a pistol grip. It must have either a threaded barrel, second pistol grip, barrel shroud or the ability to accept a magazine outside of the pistol grip.

 

AGAIN, as written it is not banning pistols with a pistol grip. Only those with a second pistol grip with is already regulated under the NFA as a AOW. What sucks for me is the threaded barrel as almost every pistol I have has a threaded barrel. And nearly every AR pistol meets 4 of the 5 criteria.

 

 

 

We need to worry and become involved but the bill does not affect pistols with a single pistol grip.

 

Dolomite

 

What we're saying is that the definitions on her bill that says a pistol grip is any characteristic on the gun used to grip. There is no common sense being applied to this bill in any manner, and I expect it is worded exactly like they want it to be. The frame of a pistol could be classified as a pistol grip under her definition, making a normal pistol a gun with 2 pistol grips.

 

I wouldn't grant any logic to her bill at all.

[RED333]

The truly sad part of all of this is the fact the Government can not or will not enforce the Laws on the books now.

Background checks are fine as they are now, the Government, Federal, State, and Local need to and should to a better job at catching and putting the law breakers in jail and keep them there, that is the problem.

Get the law breakers off the street, there needs to be stiffer jail time for firearm crime.

[mcurrier]

[PolePosition]

I'm not understanding the threaded barrel part. I'm guessing this means you can't thread on muzzle devices...but doesn't that effectively "ban" suppressors since you will no longer have a way to attach them? 

[m16ty]

...but doesn't that effectively "ban" suppressors since you will no longer have a way to attach them? 

 

 

Yes

 

Threaded barrels were banned in the '94 ban on certain guns. Part of the law was also banning anything that hid the muzzle flash, which suppressors do.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I hate to say it but we need to educate ourselves before running around like the sky is falling or our hair is on fire. I am just saying we need to read the bill in its entirity and not rely on third parties, like WND or Alex Jones, for fact finding.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

 

If it passed tomorrow as written, which I seriously doubt, it will not affect any of the guns currently owned. If passed no guns you currently own will be banned from ownership. You can still have them and you can still take them to the range. Only the future sale, transfer or manufacture of those weapons listed will not be allowed. We are not going to have to turn our guns in if they are on the list, have a threaded muzzle or a second pistol grip. 

 

The government is not going to come around and check for threaded muzzles. They are not going to come take your guns if it has a threaded muzzle, second pistol grip or a barrel shroud. It will not affect any magazines you currently own. You can still take your high capacity magazines to the range with your gun that is on the list.

 

And don't confuse this post and think I am condoning any part or this. Or that I approve of it in place of something worse. I have gotten so upset at this it has affected my health and my relationships. I hate what is happening with every fiber of my being and I get sick thinking about it.

 

We are at a bad point right now and we cannot give up the fight or relax. We need to call, write or email our representatives. And not just our own but other representatives as well because they will not verify if you are in their jurisdiction. And besides it is not against the law to call other people's representatives. We need to be MORE active than those who oppose us.

 

But in the end we need to be informed and not rely on the typical sources that use sensationalism and fear.

 

Dolomite

[Oh Shoot]

....If it passed tomorrow as written, which I seriously doubt, it will not affect any of the guns currently owned. If passed no guns you currently own will be banned from ownership. You can still have them and you can still take them to the range. Only the future sale, transfer or manufacture of those weapons listed will not be allowed. 

 

 

And actually, it does not ban sale/transfer of existing grandfathered firearms/magazines, just as the '94 AWB did not.

 

So, should the worst happen, owners of weapons and mags would be sitting on potential small fortunes, especially over time, since the bill has no sunset, and could only be changed by future amendments or repeal.

 

- OS

[Mike.357]

 If passed no guns you currently own will be banned from ownership. You can still have them and you can still take them to the range. Only the future sale, transfer or manufacture of those weapons listed will not be allowed.

 

this is what pisses me off, among other things.  Half the reason I own guns is to be able to pass something on to my son and grandkids.  Or to sell them for much needed cash if the need should arise. 

 

This entire ban deal is for the .gov to have their foot on our necks.  Without a means to resist we have no freedom.

 

I wish I could tell these people this personally.

[Oh Shoot]

this is what pisses me off, among other things.  Half the reason I own guns is to be able to pass something on to my son and grandkids.  Or to sell them for much needed cash if the need should arise.

 

You read my post?

 

I'd say they looked ahead and knew they'd have trouble with the "taking" rulings on 5A.

 

- OS

[Dolomite_supafly]

It upsets me to. And I will likely transfer them to my son. And because there is no registration requirements it would be hard to place when they were given.

The bill allows me to take possession of "his" firearms for use on a range by me. I have an established range at my house and as long as "his" guns remain here I am legal.

This is all speculative because it will take months for it to make it through the process. And I seriously doubt it will.

I can see universal background checks passing but not much more. But we must still remain vigilant.

Dolomite

[Oh Shoot]

It upsets me to. And I will likely transfer them to my son. And because there is no registration requirements it would be hard to place when they were given.

 

Well, it doesn't matter when they are given or sold under the bill. Guns/mags are either transferable or not. Any owned before enactment of the bill are transferable. Though it does call for a background check for transfer of grandfathered banned firearms (but not mags), as you say there is no way to prove when they were transferred (at least in most states), so no way to prove that a background check was needed.

 

Proof if charged of transferring a post-ban firearm would  have to come down to serial number as per manufacturer's records I assume. Proof regarding post-ban magazines is same, as all hi-cap mags are required to be serialized post bill enactment.

 

- OS

Edited February 3, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Wingshooter]

It upsets me to. And I will likely transfer them to my son. And because there is no registration requirements it would be hard to place when they were given.
The bill allows me to take possession of "his" firearms for use on a range by me. I have an established range at my house and as long as "his" guns remain here I am legal.
This is all speculative because it will take months for it to make it through the process. And I seriously doubt it will.
I can see universal background checks passing but not much more. But we must still remain vigilant.
Dolomite

The universal background check idea has me nervous. I'm all for making sure crazies don't get guns, but the univ background check seems like a watered down name for a registration on any gun transferred or purchased in the future.

[Mike.357]

You read my post?

 

I'd say they looked ahead and knew they'd have trouble with the "taking" rulings on 5A.

 

- OS

 

I saw and read your post.  I just trust next to no one.  Well except for you and a couple of others.  I do not trust der gooberment even a little bit.  I trust SCOTUS even less.

 

I fully expect more slaughters, ala Sandy Hoax to happen.  And I fully expect a big push for us to "turn them in" before this is all done.

[Oh Shoot]

I saw and read your post.  I just trust next to no one.  Well except for you and a couple of others.  I do not trust der gooberment even a little bit.  I trust SCOTUS even less.

 

I fully expect more slaughters, ala Sandy Hoax to happen.  And I fully expect a big push for us to "turn them in" before this is all done.

 

May all happen. But it's not in Feinstein's bill, which is the topic.

 

- OS

[Mike.357]

 I'm all for making sure crazies don't get guns, 

 

 

I guess there have been court rulings on this. but i am still unsure of where infringed falls in this matter.

[Mike.357]

May all happen. But it's not in Feinstein's bill, which is the topic.

 

- OS

what does OT have to do with anything around here?  LOL

[Oh Shoot]

The universal background check idea has me nervous.

 

That's also not in Feinstein's bill, just to keep on track here, though it does call for background check on transfer of grandfathered banned items.

 

- OS

Edited February 3, 2013 by Oh Shoot