The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 27, 2013, 04:18 PM   #1
enstorm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2005
Posts: 195
A Few Thoughts On The Bill

1. The introduction is interesting. A bill "to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited..." First, I cannot recall the last time the NRA or anybody on this site suggested that "the people" have a right to keep and bear howitzers, mortars, grenades, LAWS, RPGs, tanks, Apaches, nukes, etc etc. Second, I cannot remember any bill introduced as "ensuring that the right to free speech is not unlimited," ditto the right to due process, peaceable assembly, etc etc.

2. Semi-auto handguns having the "capacity" to accept a threaded barrel are illegal if not grandfathered. So far as I know, as a practical matter every semi-auto handgun made in the past century has the capability of accepting a different barrel than the one it shipped with. Note, though, that the list of approved weapons includes no semi-auto pistols that would exempt any from the operation of the rule.

3. Any semi-automatic rifle having the "capacity" to accommodate a folding or telescoping stock is illegal. In other words, since probably all rifles have the "capacity" of being fitted with an aftermarket stock, the gun is illegal unless it is grandfathered or on the specifically "approved" list of firearms in the "approved" stock configuration.

4. The commerce clause is of course the basis for the federal legislation. I have not seen a federal act yet that "ensures" that federal power under the commerce clause is not unlimited, only that fundamental civil rights not be unlimited.

5. Why are "approved" bolt and slide rifles and shotguns specifically enumerated since they are exempt from the bill anyhow? Cabela's 1874 Sharps, too? Please. Is the bill looking to future amendments that will outlaw any new model of rifle or shotgun, or at least amendments requiring manufacturers to apply to be on the approved list of non-assault weapons?

6. I thought the bill would be more extreme than it is. But, if it is upheld, then there will be little chance of putting the brakes on to more and more restrictive legislation.
enstorm is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 07:00 PM   #2
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
6) is the big point, in my opinion.

When some crazy person walks into a gun free zone with a remington 700 and kills 20 people, they will be next.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 07:27 PM   #3
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,331
They wanted a long list of 'approved' weapons to be able to point to it and say, 'see, we respect the 2nd Amendment, you can still go hunting', in order to divide the gun-owning community between themselves, and to carve in stone the concept that the gov't gets to allow us to exercise our rights by permission only.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 08:08 PM   #4
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 235
enstorm, please modify or delete your post

We don't need to be improving the enemies' bills for them
speedrrracer is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 09:52 PM   #5
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 632
Quote:
‘‘(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
‘‘(i) A threaded barrel.
‘‘(ii) A second pistol grip.
‘‘(iii) A barrel shroud.
‘‘(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable
magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
OLL13052 S.L.C. 4
‘‘(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
The way I read this is the pistol has the capacity to have the removable magazine. The features list is for actual features. So a Glock with a threaded barrel would be banned, but a Glock without out one would be OK, with a 7 round magazine.
wally626 is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 10:08 PM   #6
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 536
Quote:
1. The introduction is interesting. A bill "to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited..." First, I cannot recall the last time the NRA or anybody on this site suggested that "the people" have a right to keep and bear howitzers, mortars, grenades, LAWS, RPGs, tanks, Apaches, nukes, etc etc. Second, I cannot remember any bill introduced as "ensuring that the right to free speech is not unlimited," ditto the right to due process, peaceable assembly, etc etc.
People do own tanks and cannon. Some even fire them at Knob Creek and other places!

I am not sure if the original intent of the 2A included cannon and such. I'm sure that question has been answered here or on The High Road.

As for the text of the bill--it's pure tyranny. Also consider that they're saying a mere law overrides the Constitution! They're so comfortable that they have not even cloaked it using the Commerce Clause.

Of course, we all know that we do not live in a country with a government that even remotely stays within its constitutional boundaries. This is why it is essential to continually contact your legislators on a state and federal level since all that stands between some liberty and insane tyranny is a how a bunch of politicians do the math in their heads regarding what they think they can get away with.
tomrkba is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 10:18 PM   #7
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following
People have suggested two ways to read the above:
... has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has the capacity to accept any 1 of the following ...
- OR -
... has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has any 1 of the following ...
The bill contains its own rebuttal to the former reading. The list of 'approved' guns includes the "Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock)." The bill's text acknowledges that Mini-14s can accept folding stocks, but only bans Mini-14s that actually have folding stocks.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 11:50 PM   #8
Landis
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 7
If someone wants to own a nuke, and has ill intent, and can afford it, does making it illegal prevent them from owning one?

What about letters of marque which authorized basically privately owned warships?

The issue isn't people, good citizens with morals, principle and honor from having ANY sort of weapon. The issue is when immoral unprincipled, dishonorable people getting any weapons, and they usually are not deterred by laws. Our biggest mistake is usually to assume government always works within the constraints of morality, principle and honor.
Landis is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08529 seconds with 7 queries