Should I buy a so-called assault rifle now?

[RAJBCPA]

...I don't have much need for one right now, but I believe I will not be able to buy one in the near future if I need one. I can feel the legislation flying through Congress.

I owned a semi-auto Thompson 45 acp Tommy gun in the 1970s and, like a dope, I sold it.

Oh well, live a learn.

[hogger129]

I listened to Feinstein on MSNBC awhile ago and she said they don't want to allow grandfathering -- so even if you buy before the ban, it's still illegal.

[norahc]

Definitely.

[GunnyGene]

Your call. But like any other implement, you should first determine a purpose for it. It's not any different than deciding whether you need a new ax or a new chainsaw. Don't buy it because of the current hype on the news over the Newtown shooting.

[aa1911]

We've survived other mass shootings without new legislation. While it's certainly a concern I don't think anything will pass. More important things to worry about than trampling the 2A any more.

But I'd always recommend getting a new gun! why not? The more the merrier.

and don't forget the equally important thing; buy lots of high cap mags. A semi auto is a single shot without magazines. Gotta have tons of them.

[Maine04657]

Originally Posted by hogger129

I listened to Feinstein on MSNBC awhile ago and she said they don't want to allow grandfathering -- so even if you buy before the ban, it's still illegal.

This will never work. There are far to many out there and many le's would not go door to door to confiscate them. You may stop new ones but getting the ones already out there will be impossible.

[rcairflr]

[QUOTE=Maine04657;1039500]This will never work. There are far to many out there and many le's would not go door to door to confiscate them. You may stop new ones but getting the ones already out there will be impossible.[/QUOTE]

If they make Assault style rifles illegal:

You may be right that it will be impossible to "get them all", but the government will make fodder of many of our fellow citizens trying to get them all and the Military and Law enforcement that people on this forum so highly praise, will be the instrument that they use to get them.

[WHSmithIV]

The military won't do it - there is no Constitutional authority that allows the military to do so. State National Guards 'could' be used but that would end up being state controlled.

[Old Guy]

I would not so quickly discount the military. Part of their oath is to obey the commands of the President (Commander In Chief). There will be some like my sons who will not obey commands to act against Americans, but there are many more who are of his persuasion that would probably act. This is pretty serious stuff here and not to be glossed over.

[firefighter1635]

Door to door confiscations would result in a revolution. It's not going to happen people, quit worrying about it. Are you going to sit by while ANYONE kicks your door in if you haven't done a damn thing wrong? I know I won't, they'll end up killing me.

While we need to be weary of new legislation to come because of this and other senseless acts, we need to be realistic as well.

[jbrescue]

Run, do not walk to the nearest LGS and get one now. The assulat rifle ban is coming, it will be to what extent we wait and see.

[Zhurh]

I remember back in 1990.they sold millions of SKS's in the USA cheap. If you haven't already acquired an AR, I doubt you are serious anyway, just talking outta your butt. Don't bother unless you realize there is an important constitutional reason in owning one. You'll just give it up when they scare the crap out of ya.

[RAJBCPA]

In a different post here, I asked if I should buy an assault weapon because there will be new legislation banning these guns once again. Many of the respondents to that post discussed a new possible federal legal ban and the potential for government confiscation of existing guns that are now in the public domain (Diane Fienstien's and Carol McCarthy's ideal legislation).

When the required background check legislation went into effect during the Clinton's "gun-grab" error in the 1990s , the NRA and others faught hard to prevent the information that was going to be collected in the background checks to be kept in ANY form by the feds (e.g., - NO federal gun registry).

I believe the background check information is IMMEDIATELY destroyed after the process is complete; right? A hard copy of the information in the background form is kept by the local FFL only; right?

Anyway, if that is true, the federal and state governments should not have sufficient information to perform a wholesale confiscation of these guns.

[norahc]

Once the government gets ANY, and I mean ANY, information, they NEVER, EVER get rid of it. Whether or not they use it is another story, but they always keep it.

[RAJBCPA]

Zhurh:
Please do not tell me I am not serious about buying a so-called assault rifle.

I owned a Tommy gun, which is classified as an assault weapon, in the 1970s and I regret selling it. Your opinion about my true intentions on buying an assault weapon is insulting to me because it has no basis in fact.

[RAJBCPA]

If the feds are keeping the information they obtain in background checks, that would be a federal violation of law.

I doubt this is happening but it is possible. Eric Holder sold assault weapons to criminals, so anything is possible.

[aa1911]

I'm supposed to register all my guns with the military/fort lewis so anything I put down on those forms is common knowledge to FBI and others.

I wouldn't worry too much, I highly doubt there's going to be any significant changes due to this recent tragedy. a possibility, but I got my fingers crossed.

Join the NRA if you haven't yet and get as active as you can with your local government to let your elected officials know how you feel.

[RAJBCPA]

I dropped my NRA membership after the Wayne Lapeirre comment about jack-booted thugs in the early 1990s

I live in a local area where there are laws on the books for the last 12 years that require gun owners to lock up all guns in their own homes.

The NRA has not lifted a finger to help us, however.

[RAJBCPA]

I believe there are state law restrictions on the sale of so-called assault rifles in the state of New York. Apparently, these restrictions went into effect before the federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004. I think I read that similar restrictions also apply in New Jersey and CT.

I'm absolutely sure in New York, you cannot purchase newly made ammo magazines in excess of 10 rounds, so this is one restriction that I know about.

Which rifles can be purchased legally in New York currently?

Thx.

[aa1911]

like it or not, it's the only game in town. I don't 100% agree with everything they do but it's our only realistic defense.

[goofy]

You can buy any rifle in NY that confirms to the rules
It can only have a 10 round mag.Any mag. that are Pre-ban are legal.
It can only have a compensator not a suppressor and it has to be permanently attached.
It can not have a adjustable stock.
It can only be semi no burst or auto.
The barrel has to be 18" or above.
The list goes on but they are the ones that they look for the most.
Look up NY gun laws to see what they define as a "Assault weapon"

[Zhurh]

Acquired my first AR over 25 years back. Decided back then that it was my right, my Constitutional Responsibility to do my part to protect my personal and our Nation's Freedoms from tyranny of dictatorial government gone crazy; if it ever comes down to that. I'm quite absolute about the right to bear arms much in the same way I served my country when drafted many years back. It's hard for me to fathom or contemplate ownership of an AR. When I hear somebody say: should I buy an AR or not; I wonder where has this individual been all their life? I guess I believe that if one has ever thought about the 2nd amendment, they would already own an AR. No offense meant personally.

[GunnyGene]

Originally Posted by Zhurh

Acquired my first AR over 25 years back. Decided back then that it was my right, my Constitutional Responsibility to do my part to protect my personal and our Nation's Freedoms from tyranny of dictatorial government gone crazy; if it ever comes down to that. I'm quite absolute about the right to bear arms much in the same way I served my country when drafted many years back. It's hard for me to fathom or contemplate ownership of an AR. When I hear somebody say: should I buy an AR or not; I wonder where has this individual been all their life? I guess I believe that if one has ever thought about the 2nd amendment, they would already own an AR. No offense meant personally.

Rick and Bubba were talking about this very thing on the radio this morning. What the 2nd was intended for. We all know it's purpose was, and is, about a check and balance on over zealous govt - ours or somebody else's - and personal protection against whatever comes your way, and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with hunting.

Yet we've allowed the liberals/progressives to redefine it's original reason for being to somehow exclude the above and focus on hunting: The statements being along the lines of: "Who needs an AR for hunting?" Well, nobody actually. But that's not even a relevant question. We not only should have adequate weapons for the original reasons, but we DESERVE to have them for the original reasons.

But for the liberals who believe that government is the solution (the more intrusive the better) the original purpose of the 2nd is totally incomprehensible. They simply cannot, or will not, imagine a future in which a government would not have the "best interests of the people" at heart. To them I would say: Look no further than the Middle East.

[DBMJR1]

I've posted this in another thread, and on other forums;

This is what I think will happen:

The President will add all semi-automatic firearms, with a capacity of more than ten rounds, and/or detachable magazines, to the NFA destructive device list.

Transfers of these firearms would be subject to the same rules/laws.

I think he will include handguns, as he has stated that he believes these handguns are responsible for the majority of the inner city violence.

I think he will make this retroactive, meaning you will have to register each one of your firearms that fall under the above description. You will have to pay the $5 tax on each firearm as well.

Since it is not a ban, there will be no question as to it's Constitutionality.

This is what Clinton did with the Street Sweeper shotguns in '91, IIRC.

I'm not sure if he would exclude rimfire firearms.

[RAJBCPA]

What is the NFA destructive device list?

So this can be done with an executive order by Obama without Congressional consent?