460 Ford Forum banner

proposd gun ban list

3K views 30 replies 18 participants last post by  Fomoco8 
#1 ·
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-Point20Carbine,
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 and 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 more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire 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, 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 law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a 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.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
Forward or send to every gun owner you know…
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Can you keep your pointed stick??:rolleyes:

What an unbelievablely insane move to make. The criminals love an unarmed public. I live a couple of hours from Toronto, and the crooks are still getting hand and machine guns and killing unarmed citizens there.

Gun control doesn't work.

Bill
 
#3 ·
:(

Guy's please don't make this thread get locked, but stop and think about us as a Free nation being forced to give up your firearms, I do not have a gun that fits most of that list, but I have pistols, 22 semi-auto's, and shotguns that can be in danger. To me this is unacceptable.:rolleyes:
 
#4 ·
I highly doubt that they really want to push this too far. The public outcry the last time this was proposed decimated the Dems. They are merely doing some pandering of the anti-gun lobbyists to save contribution money. They really want the control of money in gov't and know that any time that gun control is brought up that their job is in jeopardy. There are not too many local or state police personell that would try to go out and confiscate firearms, nor would the military be brought in to help with it. Let's be rational and not get too paranoid. It is good to be informed, but much better to be realistic.:cool:
 
#10 ·
There are not too many local or state police personell that would try to go out and confiscate firearms,
I disagree, police officers do things against their better judgement, ethics, morals and beliefs everyday, because it is the law and their job. They don't have a very good history of "standing against" the law and making a point. I wouldn't put any trust in a police officer to save my guns or look the other way. If it's comes down to your guns vs their job, your on the losing end.

As far as guns, I have a handgun, rifles, shotguns for purpose of hunting and family guns that have been passed to me from past family members.

The assault weapons don't effect me because it is something I do not do. But I don't believe their should be a law to prevent people from owning them for their own use or reasons. Hobbyist and collectors having them makes me feel a whole lot safer than knowing just the criminals have them regardless of a law.
 
#5 ·
Hey Schmitty ole buddy, if we lost our guns we would have to learn to catch them wild hogs.:D
Sorry, but I had to pick at you a little.:D:D
Take care.:)
 
#6 ·
:D David, I've said it many times, they can have my guns, BARREL first. I'm not the only one who feels this way either, and the first rule of being a cop is to stay alive and make it home after the shift is over.:cool: Fastest way to Civil War II is to try and take the guns from us ********.:eek:
 
#9 · (Edited)
For what it's worth, I'm not sure if this list is real or not. It does not appear on any part of the NRA web site. It's not getting any press on any of the bigger gun sites. So it may be true but it may be one screw balls pipe dream. There is an easy answer to this taking away what was legal yesterday bull crap. The 70% of this country gun owners just needs to say NO. Is this country going to jail 70% of it's people? Who would be left to earn any money for the gov then? Tax returns are coming, time to buy more guns and ammo!!!!!!!!
 
#13 ·
I would like to think that too, and I hope like hell that is the outcome. Like I stated I am no gun enthusiast but I believe in bearing arms and most my guns are more sentimental/heritage for no other purpose then a occasional hunt.

I think that many people wanted a change from the present war and politics the last 8 yrs they were willing to overlook some of the far left thinking they knew Obama might be capable of.

I am highly disappointed the Obama administration is working toward issues involving green and gun control when I think the economy and present state demands much more of his attention.

BTW..I hope this is not a topic that gets locked and as long as we continue to talk about it constructivley
 
#15 · (Edited)
I didn't vote for him either, but I woulda voted for him before McCain (Ron Paul in '12?). I think Obama's really looking like he's gonna fall flat compared to all his pre-election talk. So for those that supported G.W.'s policies probably will be mildly happy to see that our Iraq pull-out is only half-hearted and our influence there will remain strong. I think those that did vote for him can complain if he doesn't do as he said he would. I'm also all for cutting a deal with the Taliban if that gets us out of there and able to more quickly get our economy back on its feet. The soviets lost a lot of guys and $$ (rubles, whatever) there with no results. I think the US is heading on a similar path. As for the gun ban, I agree that it's the fastest way to Civil War II and there will be a lot of "north" states on the pro-gun side of things. I'm guessing this list was put out by someone who makes or sells large amounts of those listed guns. What better way to increase sales right now? And why's my ammo gotta keep getting more expensive even though the dollar is getting stronger and metal prices have taken a dump? $80 for a box of 20 rounds for my .458?

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=108410

I cook it up myself with new brass, the same soft point 500gr. Hornady bullets, powder and primers for $45 per 20, but still.
 
#16 ·
Jeff, I can't say anything about your local constables, but I have talked to my local sherrif and friends in the NE State Patrol, and they want nothing to do with firearm confiscation.;)
 
#23 ·
Schmitty

Yeah, I don't doubt there are plenty of citizens wearing badges that have a "personal" opinion of the gun laws. I would say the majority of law enforcement probably hold "bear arms" as close to their heart as any of us do.

But if it ever came down to enforcing the law what choice do they have if they want to keep their job being the law ?

I have several good friends who wear local badges, and w have been on the topic many times. Both of them feel strongly about their arms that they would resist giving them up. B How they would react if they were forcing the law on others I think could only be determined when they are faced face to face with doing it.
 
#19 ·
The last paragraph says it all. The Dems won't let it see the light of day because they know what the repercussions would be. I'm not saying "don't be vigilant" but that even these guys remember the wrath of the last gun bill and don't want to lose their power again. They would rather have control of the money than the guns. Merely political pandering by a politician looking to save face and keep a promise he made.:cool:
 
#21 ·
Thats not all take a look at this!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just received this from the email agent at GunBrokers.com


This happened yesterday.

"Effective immediately DOD Surplus, LLC, will be implementing new requirements for mutilation of fired shell casings. The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction. Mutilation of the property can be done at the DRMO, if permitted by the Government, or it may be mutilated at a site chosen by the buyer. Mutilation means that the property will be destroyed to the extent prevents its reuse or reconstruction. DOD Surplus personnel will determine when property has been sufficiently mutilated to meet the requirements of the Government. "

Once-fired brass military casings we have already paid for will be destroyed and not made available for public sale for reloading purposes. Selling these casings for scrap reduces the value by 80% and makes ammunition loading components less available. Prices will increase dramatically for several common calibers of ammunition. Suppliers have already suspended sale of once-fired military brass and ammunition made using once-fired brass.

It is both par for Obama's economic genious and his policies on guns and ammunition. You probably won't hear this on the news folks.

If we thought re-loadable brass WAS high, wait and see what this does to prices.
Economic brilliance, turn $250.000 dollars worth of usable brass into $2,500 in scrap
 
#28 ·
What the hell good is a gun ban anyhow? Criminals will buy whatever they want...because they're illegal anyhow!

As for trusting law enforcement officers to do the right thing? Not me. Not in this lifetime.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top