And it starts..our worst nightmare

[anfoman76]

Gun Law Update by Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm Jan. 5, 2008

Gun-ban list proposed

Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly.

I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity, It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals.

Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR,

or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR
95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil & Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle(Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept > 10 rds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has (i) a second pistol grip, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a barrel shroud or (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General." Note that Obama's pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose - is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent

[glocknut]

Well... at least my kitchen sink is ok?

The Bradies might wind up living a slightly more reclusive lifestyle because of this BS. They don't seem to understand the concept of "cause and effect"...

mike
gn

[Teejay9]

What makes them think we want them for "sporting purposes?" What happened to the personal defense of house and family? Boy, they are either in dream world, or they're trying to break it down to a few shot guns, O/U side-by-side and revolvers. Then they'll go after THEM!! TJ

[Marlin T]

Teejay, they are going after pistols. I don't remember what bill it was, but if a sidearm weights over X oz. then it would be banned.

This would virtually ban .50 cals.

[dge479]

where in the constitution does it state "sporting purpose"?

[Teejay9]

As I looked at this list I found myself thinking, "I really don't want to own ANY of these particular weapons." Then I realized that that sort of thinking plays right into the hands of these people. That it is just a starting point and that I should stand strong against ALL infringements upon our rights, regardless of how I personally feel about some of these "ugly" (i.e.Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi) guns. It must have been a "senior moment.' Thank God my head is clear again. TJ

[pickenup]

Originally Posted by Teejay9

Thank God my head is clear again. TJ

Yes........thankfully.

[ponycar17]

Because it worked so well at doing absolutely NOTHING to a non-existant crime problem before... What idiots!

Since we all know these guns are not a problem in crime, being used in 0.2% of all violent crime and 1.4% of all firearms crime back before 1994, what is the purpose of the ban? What is so terrible that the government plans to do or foresees on the horizon that would cause the average citizen to pick one of these up and start using it?... Really, that's a question we should ask! Let's put these idiots on the defensive and make them answer to why citizens who possess these guns are a threat since the guns are rarely used in the commission of a crime!

I'd soil my pants if I saw some 'Joe the Plumber' type ask Obama and/or Biden, "so, what kind of national emergency, planned or unplanned, do you foresee that would cause so-called 'assault weapons' to become a threat to the average citizen?"

If the support for bans like this is derived merely from a standpoint of emotion and the appearance of the guns, then we should do something about that. I propose a 'Take a Soccer Parent to the Range Day' in 2009. Grab your most well-meaning but clueless soccer parent acquaintances (you know who they are and where to find 'em) and invite them to go shooting one weekend. They're the ones who are standing so firmly behind this type of bill, only because they don't understand the guns in question. Respectfully educate 'em!

[cycloneman]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

Because it worked so well at doing absolutely NOTHING to a non-existant crime problem before... What idiots!

Since we all know these guns are not a problem in crime, being used in 0.2% of all violent crime and 1.4% of all firearms crime back before 1994, what is the purpose of the ban? What is so terrible that the government plans to do or foresees on the horizon that would cause the average citizen to pick one of these up and start using it?... Really, that's a question we should ask! Let's put these idiots on the defensive and make them answer to why citizens who possess these guns are a threat since the guns are rarely used in the commission of a crime!

I'd soil my pants if I saw some 'Joe the Plumber' type ask Obama and/or Biden, "so, what kind of national emergency, planned or unplanned, do you foresee that would cause so-called 'assault weapons' to become a threat to the average citizen?"

If the support for bans like this is derived merely from a standpoint of emotion and the appearance of the guns, then we should do something about that. I propose a 'Take a Soccer Parent to the Range Day' in 2009. Grab your most well-meaning but clueless soccer parent acquaintances (you know who they are and where to find 'em) and invite them to go shooting one weekend. They're the ones who are standing so firmly behind this type of bill, only because they don't understand the guns in question. Respectfully educate 'em!

Pony, If you were to ask them and put them on the spot your a$$ would be grass. They would crawl up your but with a microscope. See what happened to joe the plumber.

As far as soccer moms.
This will never work in my opinion. This has been done and not working now. The only thing to do is to address the crime problem. That is because the crime problem is what their using to try and disarm people. So I say since law enforceent cant do the job we need to come up with ideas that work. For instance paying bonuses to law enforcemt for convictions. You may think it's crazy to pay someone extra for doing their job but let me assure you we are paying it one way or another.

What about paying them a small salary and commission for convictions? We have to reward law enforcemet for catching and convicting. That is the way business work.

What about other ideas, come one fellas, lets bounce them off each other and see what we come up with.

[Hells Toy Master]

Originally Posted by cycloneman

What about paying them a small salary and commission for convictions? We have to reward law enforcemet for catching and convicting. That is the way business work.

What about other ideas, come one fellas, lets bounce them off each other and see what we come up with.

Personaly I dont think we should pay for convitions because we will get 1% that will go out and NOT do the right thing to just get that bonus.

Personaly I think we should first PAY THEM MORE then give them bonuses for responding to situations where they are forced to discharge their gun, at this time most officers go through enough problems and we need to reward them and their familes for the hardship they go through to protect us.
(From what I have been told most officers sit at home with pay and are forced to fret over the shooting that just occured untill a board clears them and they can go back to work, and I think at that time they should have a bonus of like $1,000 to reasure them. )