|January 5, 2013, 04:26 AM||#1|
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
summary of the 2013 AWB legislation: from Dianne Feinstein's
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation: from Feinstein's Senate webpage
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of: 120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a
detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept
more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test;
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law;
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
Well this is are first look at what they want . What do you guys think .As bad as it is I was thinking it would be worse . I thought they would shoot for the stars and just take the Galaxy .
If everybody has a problem with you and you have a problem with everybody .
It's not everybody that has the problem
|January 5, 2013, 05:13 AM||#2|
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Does she explain how this falls outside the basic concept of "shall not be infringed?"
I ask this because there are a lot of very good, although evil, reasons to just take away all civil rights and pass a punitive tax increase onto those who make money by direct pay.
|January 5, 2013, 08:17 AM||#3|
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalach
This is already under discussion here. There is no need to start a new thread.
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.