If the bill is interpreted literally, it can ban all Glocks, Baretta 92 style and 1911 style handguns as well.
I urge everyone to read the actual text of the bill if you are unsure whether or not to support it. Like much government legislation, the title doesn't describe the entire effect. You may be 100% behind banning what you consider "assault weapons" but the bill may go MUCH farther than you think reasonable.

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." –

George Washington, Farewell Address
http://www.ourdocuments.gov...hp?flash=true&doc=15

Its not more than *I* expect, i know their end game. ( in theory, if this passes as is, and its taken literally they will have pretty much accomplished it.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 02-03-2013).]

Us Glock owners are pretty attached to our handguns. I'd like to see them ban all Glocks. Might not work out as well as they think.

I can't see the vid from here. Why would Glocks be under the assault weapon ban?

Magazine size, I think.

I haven't read the actual text, but there was some talk at one point of banning any handgun "capable of accepting a magazine larger than 10 rounds". If you ban the firearm, as opposed to just the magazine, that's where Glocks, sigs, everything could end up being banned.

Really ingenious actually, you'd end up banning the vast majority of handguns under that, and then have some lib-dem startup company start making extended capacity mags for Kahrs, 1911s, etc. and then those guns would be banned.

quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: I can't see the vid from here. Why would Glocks be under the assault weapon ban?

Because they are "military style weapons". No joke. Glocks are used by most police departments, Beretta 92 is the military's current go-to pistol(M9), and the 1911 was originally designed for use in the military.

quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: Us Glock owners are pretty attached to our handguns. I'd like to see them ban all Glocks. Might not work out as well as they think. I can't see the vid from here. Why would Glocks be under the assault weapon ban?

I see everyone had an answer to your question and none of them actually watched the video that gives the answer.

Under the bill, any semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon will be banned. Since the Glock 18 is fully auto, other Glock pistols may be considered semi-auto versions and are therefore banned assault weapons.

Same for the Baretta and 1911. Also, anything with a threaded barrel is an assault weapon as well as shotguns with detachable magazines - regardless of capacity.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-04-2013).]

I chose to read the bill instead of just accepting a random video as fact and I agree, its not due to the magazines. First of all 10 round magazines from the days of the last AWB are still around, so even if they retroactively banned all “high capacity” magazines, it would still be doable.

In this case part of the bill states that if any semi-auto weapon has a full-auto counterpart, then the semi-auto is also banned. The G18, while rare, does exist so it would at least ban the G17 Glocks, if not all since they are the same exact design. ( even tho they were made slightly different sized so even a 18 and an 17 cant share most parts )

Much as if a magazine fed rifle has a ‘grip’ ( without defining it.. ) it make it illegal too, which is every rifle.

I would say this is due to lack of understanding or poor wording, but it’s not. They know what they are doing.


( and you beat me to it, I was going to post this morning at home but internet was toast )

My 'fear' is that although I don't expect THIS bill to gain much traction, what will happen is that since it is on the table, the 'compromise' will still be bad.

Their goal isn't as big as this bill is. But I think the plan is that they ask for THIS MUCH, but then back up and say 'this much', and everybody breathes a sigh of relief, says 'OK', and we end up with further infringements on the 2nd anyway.

This really isn't 'compromise', where each side gives up something. WE are doing all the giving, THEY call it compromise because 'they didn't take our guns completely away'.

-Darryl

This,

quote Originally posted by dsnover: My 'fear' is that although I don't expect THIS bill to gain much traction, what will happen is that since it is on the table, the 'compromise' will still be bad. Their goal isn't as big as this bill is. But I think the plan is that they ask for THIS MUCH, but then back up and say 'this much', and everybody breathes a sigh of relief, says 'OK', and we end up with further infringements on the 2nd anyway. This really isn't 'compromise', where each side gives up something. WE are doing all the giving, THEY call it compromise because 'they didn't take our guns completely away'. -Darryl

and that right there scares the sh!t out of me.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

Say the DO ban high round mags and the AR guns.

What does that mean?
Someone will confinscate the bad stuff from your home with or without your permission? or see ya at a range and come pry it from your hands? Call a cop? (for record: I don't think that will happen, but I don't really know.)

I mean come on, the hype and scare tactic worked and now everyone and their dog needs/wants to get all that stuff.
AR sales and acc. are sold out, ammo, sold out, extra mags(30rnds.) out. Waiting line everywhere for assocated ammo, or even to get a gun of ANY caliber! EVEN the lonely .22LR! who would have known the little .22 would sell out!?!? BUT I have seen PLENTY of 30-06 ammo around......

So now there are even MORE of the guns and acc. that no one likes anymore out there for the theifs to come try to take. Who wins???

quote Originally posted by revin: Say the DO ban high round mags and the AR guns. What does that mean? Someone will confinscate the bad stuff from your home with or without your permission? or see ya at a range and come pry it from your hands? Call a cop? (for record: I don't think that will happen, but I don't really know.) I mean come on, the hype and scare tactic worked and now everyone and their dog needs/wants to get all that stuff. AR sales and acc. are sold out, ammo, sold out, extra mags(30rnds.) out. Waiting line everywhere for assocated ammo, or even to get a gun of ANY caliber! EVEN the lonely .22LR! who would have known the little .22 would sell out!?!? BUT I have seen PLENTY of 30-06 ammo around...... So now there are even MORE of the guns and acc. that no one likes anymore out there for the theifs to come try to take. Who wins???

Watch the video. Even better, read the bill.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I see everyone had an answer to your question and none of them actually watched the video that gives the answer.

Sorry, I have not had time to examine the bill, and I am more than a bit skeptikal of any video that says something "sucks" right on the top frame of the video.. I am looking for someone who is going to maturely and accurately portray the facts without using juvenile insults and terms. I'm getting too old to respect, sorry i did not watch your video, and I doubt I will. I will read the bill, though, I promise you that.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-04-2013).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Sorry, I have not had time to examine the bill, and I am more than a bit skeptikal of any video that says something "sucks" right on the top frame of the video.. I am looking for someone who is going to maturely and accurately portray the facts without using juvenile insults and terms. I'm getting too old to respect, sorry i did not watch your video, and I doubt I will. I will read the bill, though, I promise you that.

I would respecfully request you not answer questions about the topic until you take the time to educate yourself. There's enough misinformation going around already.
After you've read the bill, please add your input.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: This really isn't 'compromise', where each side gives up something. WE are doing all the giving, THEY call it compromise because 'they didn't take our guns completely away'. -Darryl

Yep we comprise ( which feel is totally wrong anyway.. ) then they just move the line and start the process all over again. Its not just with guns, its how they operate on all issues until they get their way.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I would respecfully request you not answer questions about the topic until you take the time to educate yourself. There's enough misinformation going around already. After you've read the bill, please add your input.

Ok, read it. I was not entirely wrong,either. Some glocks could be outlawed partially for the reason I gave. (Magazine capacity of over 10 rounds) but that is in combination with feature including extra grip, pistol grip, grenade launcher, shroud.. etc. OR for being a semi version of an automatic. (Which I think is wrong) After,and only after I read that, I did some investigating and none of those features are either a)common or b)all that extra dangerous when they are common.

I saw 6 pages @ 25 per page of outlawed firearms that could not be sold NEW under this ban. I then saw 95 pages of firearms exempt from this ban. I also saw that lawfully grandfathered weaponry will not be outlawed, and therefore no one is "coming to get your guns" you legally own. Only restricting future sales on those 6 pages of firearms or those of similar features. Nowhere on either of those two lists were glocks, however, so one has to wonder what sort of gray areas that will lead to, or if they would like to complete the lists to include all commercially available weaponry and how they are classified. (I dont like gray areas, either..)

As I thought, both sides are blowing it out of proportion... but I see some reasons in there to be suspicious. The only people who will suffer are those who want to purchase new weapons that meet two of the criteria to be an "assault weapon". If you own it, nobody is coming after it because of this bill. On the other hand, worthless features that do not make a gun any more dangerous should not be the deciding factor in what constitutes an "assault weapon."

Bottom line is I support parts of the bill, and disagree with parts of it. Like most proposed legislation, it is rife with "extras" that take away from what I believe the true intent of the proposed law should be. (To protect against mass shootings)

I have always espoused the opinion that nobody needs thirty rounds (or more) to defend their home or family. I am allowed to only have three shots to hunt pheasant, and if I cannot hit with those and have to reload, its my shortcoming for not being properly trained or a good shot. If I were in the hypothetical C/C situation near a mass shooting and I cannot hit what I am aiming at with ten rounds or less, I would very likely be making the matter worse by adding more lead flying in the air.

The proposed legislation, in my opinion, is not good enough. And I would hope that if it does pass, it is only after some major common sense revisions. 10 shots or less.. I'm fine with that. Outlawing the sale of a new weapon just because of a pistol grip or is a semi auto knock off of an automatic is stupid.

That just ate up 2 hours of my day, but I felt it was worth investigating. No need to call my local congressman, he already is opposed. I am against the legislation, but not if it is revised to more realistically reflect what should constitute a dangerous weapon and go after those that are truly more disposed to kill too many people in too short a time without reloading.

Thank you for your respectful request, F88, it is only that second post that made me even want to look. A hint to all those who would argue against this legislation..Formula88 did it the right way. Keep a cool head and you can attract more flies with honey. Get defensive or make veiled threats, and well, you are just giving some more justification in their mind that you very well may be dangerous.

I hope the ban in this form fails, thats the bottom line. (literally)

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-04-2013).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: 10 shots or less ( etc )

Not to start an argument ( i'm being good, if you haven't noticed ) , but i was wondering how you define the term 'infringement'. Its quite clear the federal government is prohibited from infringement, as long as the amendment stands as it is. ( same goes for the 1st too.. ). To me passing laws such as this is by definition infringement, and illegal.

Should one give a free pass for the feds to violate the law just because they like the outcome?

The only real debate should be if the 2nd amendment should stand or not. Not one on how or why to ignore what it says and go around it. ( yes.. i'm suggesting an all or nothing battle on this issue .. winner take all ). Same goes for the 1st, as most of us remember 'campaign finance' which clearly violated the first of 'congress shall pass no law.. ...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press'.

We should either honor our founders or start over.


EDIT: and you have to love the new term she created " Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon " It would be comical except that people have been brainwashed into thinking that way.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 02-04-2013).]

I noticed. And thank you.

I hate to say this, but in the case of all laws they can be challenged in court, bucked to the top, to SCOTUS ... and it may take time for the courts to sort it out. New and more restrictive laws are being conceived all the time, and it takes the full judicial process to play out before they are declared constitutional or unconstitutional. In my opinion constitutionality should be decided before the bill is even drafted... but lawmakers are convinced that doing the right thing might require throwing crap at the wall and see what sticks. I do NOT like that about our system.

We have government representatives that are supposed to be there to represent our will. If a bill succeeds and becomes law, sometimes only then is it able to be overturned on constitutionality. Its a sad fact, but most recent administrations have championed laws that were only later sorted out in the courts and found unconstitutional, even sometimes just in parts. And so the unconstitutional parts are stricken but the rest of the bill remains. . If it does come to this, we may find that in the case of magazine loadouts it does not restrict your right to bear arms, only how many bullets you may be able to fire before reloading.

Like I said, I am against it and I need no further convincing while the bill is in this form.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I noticed. And thank you. I hate to say this, but in the case of all laws they can be challenged in court, bucked to the top, to SCOTUS ... and it may take time for the courts to sort it out. New and more restrictive laws are being conceived all the time, and it takes the full judicial process to play out before they are declared constitutional or unconstitutional. In my opinion constitutionality should be decided before the bill is even drafted... but lawmakers are convinced that doing the right thing might require throwing crap at the wall and see what sticks. I do NOT like that about our system. We have government representatives that are supposed to be there to represent our will. If a bill succeeds and becomes law, sometimes only then is it able to be overturned on constitutionality. Its a sad fact, but most recent administrations have championed laws that were only later sorted out in the courts and found unconstitutional, even sometimes just in parts. And so the unconstitutional parts are stricken but the rest of the bill remains. . If it does come to this, we may find that in the case of magazine loadouts it does not restrict your right to bear arms, only how many bullets you may be able to fire before reloading. Like I said, I am against it and I need no further convincing while the bill is in this form.

Oh, i know all about where an 'unconstitutional law' stands for decades until the SCOUTS decides to get off their *** and rule on it... that is IF they ever do, that is one of the few flaws i felt our founders incorporated into our system. The court can in effect 'legislate from the bench' just by refusing to hear a case before them, and not have to take any heat for making unpopular decisions.

i woudl encourage people here to write their reps instead of posting and talking about it. BSing between ourselves will get nothing done. take 10 minutes to look up your local rep and senator and email them saying your against a weapons ban of any type.

quote Originally posted by Niterrorz: i woudl encourage people here to write their reps instead of posting and talking about it. BSing between ourselves will get nothing done. take 10 minutes to look up your local rep and senator and email them saying your against a weapons ban of any type.

I have. Including my local ones. ( never forget your state side reps.. )

quote Originally posted by tbone42: no one is "coming to get your guns" you legally own. Only restricting future sales on those 6 pages of firearms or those of similar features

The concern I have is by banning the sale or transfer, that means you may not lose your gun but you can never sell it and when you die it is forfeited from your estate. It's still a backdoor confiscation in my opinion since it required the eventual surrender of the weapon as well as effectively confiscating the value of the weapon immediately since you are forbidden from selling it - it no longer has any market value. You are now out the value of that weapon. It removes the resale value of that weapon from your net worth even if you still possess the hardware.

Personally I am opposed to any new gun laws, regardless of how good they may seem simply because we have not enforced the laws we currently have. All new laws will do is punish law abiding citizens without doing anything for public safety. Even Joe Biden said in essence we need more gun laws because we don't have enough time to enforce the ones we have. (he said they don't have time to track down people who lie on 4472 forms, which is a felony).

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The concern I have is by banning the sale or transfer, that means you may not lose your gun but you can never sell it and when you die it is forfeited from your estate. It's still a backdoor confiscation in my opinion since it required the eventual surrender of the weapon as well as effectively confiscating the value of the weapon immediately since you are forbidden from selling it - it no longer has any market value. You are now out the value of that weapon. It removes the resale value of that weapon from your net worth even if you still possess the hardware. Personally I am opposed to any new gun laws, regardless of how good they may seem simply because we have not enforced the laws we currently have. All new laws will do is punish law abiding citizens without doing anything for public safety. Even Joe Biden said in essence we need more gun laws because we don't have enough time to enforce the ones we have. (he said they don't have time to track down people who lie on 4472 forms, which is a felony).

In some cases already ( like NYC ) the ban is retroactive. There have been statements made about this at the federal level, even if its not in this particular bill. Now, would it be practical to go door by door confiscating them using the soon to happen federal registration program? No of course not, but id prefer not to become a criminal overnight due previous exercising of my rights..

quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: Us Glock owners are pretty attached to our handguns. I'd like to see them ban all Glocks. Might not work out as well as they think. I can't see the vid from here. Why would Glocks be under the assault weapon ban?

Because Liberals/democrats are Stupid FU$K$. None of the guns in the ban are assault weapons they are semi-automatic weapons that look scary to them. These idiots want to put a gun on the back of the bus because of the way it looks. Sound familiar.

[This message has been edited by F355spider (edited 02-05-2013).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I saw 6 pages @ 25 per page of outlawed firearms that could not be sold NEW under this ban. I then saw 95 pages of firearms exempt from this ban. I also saw that lawfully grandfathered weaponry will not be outlawed, and therefore no one is "coming to get your guns" you legally own. Only restricting future sales on those 6 pages of firearms or those of similar features. Nowhere on either of those two lists were glocks, however, so one has to wonder what sort of gray areas that will lead to, or if they would like to complete the lists to include all commercially available weaponry and how they are classified. (I dont like gray areas, either..)

Preventing law abiding citizens from buying product IS in effect "coming and getting our guns"

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I have always espoused the opinion that nobody needs thirty rounds (or more) to defend their home or family. I am allowed to only have three shots to hunt pheasant, and if I cannot hit with those and have to reload, its my shortcoming for not being properly trained or a good shot. If I were in the hypothetical C/C situation near a mass shooting and I cannot hit what I am aiming at with ten rounds or less, I would very likely be making the matter worse by adding more lead flying in the air. The proposed legislation, in my opinion, is not good enough. And I would hope that if it does pass, it is only after some major common sense revisions. 10 shots or less.. I'm fine with that. Outlawing the sale of a new weapon just because of a pistol grip or is a semi auto knock off of an automatic is stupid.

Not sure about your area but here we have what are called "home invasions" that are getting to be more common. A home invasion is a violent crime that could involve 4 or more "invaders" that rush a home that is occupied. More often than not home owners get seriously hurt or killed in home invasions. A quick tally of "needed bullets" comes up to NOT ENOUGH if I only had 10 rounds. Two to the chest and one to the head X 4 and I am out of ammo before the threat is neutralized.

Some may think this is not a compatible argument, but I think it is: I dont think anybody should stop us from buying cars that go over 100MPH, BUT if the same line of reason were used to take away high capacity magazines on "high speed" cars ( "I dont think you need them" ), then kiss you cars goodbye because high rate of speed is the "cause" of more death in the U.S.A. than criminally negligent deaths caused by legally acquired guns. It is an ignorant mistake to try to link the illegal use of guns acquired by criminals for the purpose of committing crimes; to those that follow laws. By nature the criminals do not follow laws, and therefor laws only restrict the law abiding people.
Furthermore: the ignorant argument for the limitations (on law abiding citizens) of magazine capacity has no proof or evidence that the limitations will save lives. The ONLY thing that successful legislation regarding limitations on magazine capacity will prove is that peoples feelings/beliefs/ideas/agendas CAN and WILL be imposed on others through "law" and will be used again and again and again to impose other more restrictive "laws" on the law abiding public.

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 02-07-2013).]

quote Originally posted by F355spider: Because Liberals/democrats are Stupid FU$K$. None of the guns in the ban are assault weapons they are semi-automatic weapons that look scary to them. These idiots want to put a gun on the back of the bus because of the way it looks. Sound familiar.

Fixed that for you.

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with. ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957) {WMail Issue #23}

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Fixed that for you.

Thank you.

quote Originally posted by F355spider: Because Liberals/democrats are Stupid FU$K$. None of the guns in the ban are assault weapons they are semi-automatic weapons that look scary to them. These idiots want to put a gun on the back of the bus because of the way it looks. Sound familiar.

Just ask Mrs F. "Semi-automatic assault weapons". In clear text in her bill.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I saw 6 pages @ 25 per page of outlawed firearms that could not be sold NEW under this ban. I then saw 95 pages of firearms exempt from this ban. I also saw that lawfully grandfathered weaponry will not be outlawed, and therefore no one is "coming to get your guns" you legally own. Only restricting future sales on those 6 pages of firearms or those of similar features. Nowhere on either of those two lists were glocks, however, so one has to wonder what sort of gray areas that will lead to, or if they would like to complete the lists to include all commercially available weaponry and how they are classified. (I dont like gray areas, either..)

Preventing law abiding citizens from buying product IS in effect "coming and getting our guns"

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I have always espoused the opinion that nobody needs thirty rounds (or more) to defend their home or family. I am allowed to only have three shots to hunt pheasant, and if I cannot hit with those and have to reload, its my shortcoming for not being properly trained or a good shot. If I were in the hypothetical C/C situation near a mass shooting and I cannot hit what I am aiming at with ten rounds or less, I would very likely be making the matter worse by adding more lead flying in the air. The proposed legislation, in my opinion, is not good enough. And I would hope that if it does pass, it is only after some major common sense revisions. 10 shots or less.. I'm fine with that. Outlawing the sale of a new weapon just because of a pistol grip or is a semi auto knock off of an automatic is stupid.

Not sure about your area but here we have what are called "home invasions" that are getting to be more common. A home invasion is a violent crime that could involve 4 or more "invaders" that rush a home that is occupied. More often than not home owners get seriously hurt or killed in home invasions. A quick tally of "needed bullets" comes up to NOT ENOUGH if I only had 10 rounds. Two to the chest and one to the head X 4 and I am out of ammo before the threat is neutralized.

Some may think this is not a compatible argument, but I think it is: I dont think anybody should stop us from buying cars that go over 100MPH, BUT if the same line of reason were used to take away high capacity magazines on "high speed" cars ( "I dont think you need them" ), then kiss you cars goodbye because high rate of speed is the "cause" of more death in the U.S.A. than criminally negligent deaths caused by legally acquired guns. It is an ignorant mistake to try to link the illegal use of guns acquired by criminals for the purpose of committing crimes; to those that follow laws. By nature the criminals do not follow laws, and therefor laws only restrict the law abiding people.
Furthermore: the ignorant argument for the limitations (on law abiding citizens) of magazine capacity has no proof or evidence that the limitations will save lives. The ONLY thing that successful legislation regarding limitations on magazine capacity will prove is that peoples feelings/beliefs/ideas/agendas CAN and WILL be imposed on others through "law" and will be used again and again and again to impose other more restrictive "laws" on the law abiding public.

I would welcome a home invasion. I have already planned for such a tragedy. Guns? Check. Duct tape? Check. Soundproof room? No, but a gag may work.

Seriously, if someone were to invade my domain, and mean harm to my family, I would probably not call the police for several days. Sure, I would have to hit a mental hospital after, but at least the invader would know not to ever do this again. He would not be able to hold his fecal material in ever again.

Yeah, that's how I roll.

Internet fun. Or is it?

I see an opportunity here, I think I may apply for an Obama federal grant to make a working high capacity clip for every semi auto out there. That should close the door on all of you. Unless I read it wrong the gun just needs to accept the mag.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Unless I read it wrong the gun just needs to accept the mag.

I read it the same way.

Much like the 'removable stock' is left so vague that it could mean most any

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 02-07-2013).]