Gun laws

[clockwork]

this is slightly off topic but thought should be posted. The U.S. Congress is trying to place a gun ban that includes semi autos to browning model 1885 single shot rifles to most shot guns please read the list of Guns in the list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

[David]

Originally Posted by clockwork

this is slightly off topic but thought should be posted. The U.S. Congress is trying to place a gun ban that includes semi autos to browning model 1885 single shot rifles to most shot guns please read the list of Guns in the list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

Perhaps i have misread this. I always find legalese difficult.
But this is stated very early on in the bill:

‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The list you speak of is "appendix A" so doesn't this mean that these weapons are NOT banned by this bill?

[clockwork]

basically there trying to ban all the weapons on the list which include single shot as well as black powder other wise they would not name them from my experiance. undar appendix A covers full auto as well as semi auto under the amended then it goes on to cover the restlike lever & slide then bolt action ECT.

[David]

Originally Posted by clockwork

basically there trying to ban all the weapons on the list which include single shot as well as black powder other wise they would not name them from my experiance. undar appendix A covers full auto as well as semi auto under the amended then it goes on to cover the restlike lever & slide then bolt action ECT.

Again, i might be misreading this, but it does seem to say that the weapons on the list are NOT subject to this ban. Please read the section i have cited again. That is what it says, is it not.
This is a reauthorization of an ASSAULT WEAPONS ban. I think this ban is already in place and this bill serves to renew said ban. That is why it is a RE-authorization, no? It is not aimed at these other weapons as far as i can tell.

[David]

Here is a little bit more of this bill. I have bolded certain words for better understanding.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

The first part bolded is "paragraph (1)". Please note that this entire section deals with weapons that are exempt from this bill, including those listed in appendix A.
The last part even assures us that even if the firearm is not on the appendix A list, it may still be exempt from this bill if it meets the criteria.

[Ed]

Lists of things that the government "allows" us to have makes me nervous.

The woman pushing this bill lost her husband to the nut who killed those folks on the Long Island RR some years ago. She has been persuing this since then.

The bill is ipso facto dishonest since it refers to a definition of assault rifles that is aesthetic. The gun banners in the US have been monkeying with commenly accepted terminology to demonize virtually every firearm. I have seen references to "assault pistols" for example.

This

‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Includes every semi automatic weapon in existence. Every one.

This is the aesthetic BS

‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘(v) a grenade launcher;

These are things that are absolutely meaningless.

This

SEC. 3. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(a), is amended by adding after subsection (v) the following:

‘(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

suggests that one would have to trust the government enough to tell them that you have such magazines and get "permission" to keep them.

It also suggests that bad guys cannot do High School level msheetmetal work.

This is BS window dressing:

SEC. 4. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) STUDY- The Attorney General shall investigate and study the effect of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) REPORT- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and determinations made in the study under subsection (a).

They did such a thing in NJ some time ago. They found that the law did zero, nada, zilch. The law is still on the books because "it can't hurt".

I will refrain from dealing with the logical errors in this law.

Jesus. And people fall for it.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by clockwork

this is slightly off topic but thought should be posted. The U.S. Congress is trying to place a gun ban that includes semi autos to browning model 1885 single shot rifles to most shot guns please read the list of Guns in the list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

Actually, this is indeed 'off topic' as when we began this forum it was unique in bringing the discussion of firearms into the scope of discussion, as well as broadening our topics to all types of arms and armour.
We did however decide not to include firearms post 1900, primarily because of the heated discussions that can often arise with the controversial topic of gun control legislation, and its deviation to editorials that both conflict and distract from the study of historic weaponry.

I think we all are concerned with the ever encroaching movement of government bodies toward legislating ownership of weapons, but it seems that activism and action toward these matters should be handled separately and personally by those inclined to do so.

This forum was initiated as a subforum in a medium where the principle focus has always been primarily edged weapons, and the inclusion of firearms was in recognition of thier importance as historical weapons along with the edged weapons. I know that I have learned a great deal from the contributions here concerning firearms of historic periods, though I admit I have never been especially interested in guns, and often felt that the inclination for guns to dominate weapons collecting was disappointing. It seemed that every weapons collecting show was a 'gun show' with a few edged weapons here and there.

There is clearly great interest in firearms as evidenced by the participation here, but I personally prefer to focus on learning about historic weapons here rather than focus on the aggravation of constant legislative problems and issues. It would seem that the 'modern' guns have sort of come in 'under the radar' here. You'll notice the posts becoming increasingly aggressive in this thread, which is exactly what I had hoped to avoid in our forum, and seems to run hand in hand with these editorial threads, especially involving current legal issues. This is not intended to be a 'political 'forum.

Regardless, I know there are concerns about issues of weapons ownership, and you guys have all expressed some interesting and pertinant views, but this topic is, as noted, outside our scope.

All the best,
Jim

[Gonzalo G]

Sorry, Jim. You are right. But gun control also becomes edged weapons control, given enough time, and collectors would be also affected. By then, when collectors intend to resist it would be too late. Bureaucracy alwas tend to expand to the expense of society, absorbing the social energy available. From one control we go to the next. This gives greater power to the politicians over the population. I was only intending to establish this point, as general view which is related to collectionism. I believe that if this tendency continues, even the antique and useless firearms will be included in the gun control, as they are in some countries. Like mine.

I did not meant to be aggressive. I apologize if somebody felt offended by my words, tough passionated, they are not aimed to hurt any person.
Regards

[Jim McDougall]

I understand that these issues affect edged weapons as well, but my point is that the intent of the forum is to discuss and share information on historic weapons, not to provide a place to air political views which only leads to disharmony between participants. Simply reviewing the quickly changing texture of the posts on this thread illustrates my point. I think everyone is entitled to opinions and perspective, but prefer to avoid philosophical discussions on politics and religion here. I hear enough of all this stuff on the news!

I 've always admired the gentlemanly manner between members here in discussing weapons, and prefer to keep it that way. Discussing modern legal problems and bans on assault rifles etc. here has nothing to do with learning about the history of weapons. I think everyone involved in collecting is basically concerned with protecting thier right to own historic weapons, and should channel thier views and perspective on these issues toward the legislative representatives in thier locale who might effectively take them into consideration. From what I understand, profuse written letters to politicians has had considerable effect on the application of certain legislation, so this is better use of well reasoned opposition to these matters.

For what its worth, everyone has well expressed thier views, and I think that for the most part, much of what has been said is well placed and well written, but think we should give it a rest at this point, and keep our forum on track.

Best regards,
Jim


P.S. I am not against guns, and I have been at the wrong end of the barrel and 'took lead', so understand the passion this topic can provoke.

[Pukka Bundook]

Jim,

May I just be permitted to answer David's statement, that I am suggesting shooting someone?
I Never suggested shooting anyone.
Merely showing the frustration of the UK police. and a crime problem that is bigger than the Government cares to admit..

A deplorable state of affairs.

If this is deleted, That's OK, but wanted to clear things up!

All the best,

Richard.

[Jim McDougall]

No problem Richard. On that note, I think everyone has had a chance to say thier peace so any further issues lets go to PM's . Its always unfortunate when opinions and discussions take these turns, and inevitable with certain topics.....kinda like talking politics and religion at family get togethers

Lets get back to studying weapons history OK guys!

All the best,
Jim