A Few Thoughts On The Bill

enstorm · January 27, 2013, 04:18 PM

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.

Dr Big Bird PhD · January 27, 2013, 07:00 PM

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.

kilimanjaro · January 27, 2013, 07:27 PM

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.

speedrrracer · January 27, 2013, 08:08 PM

enstorm, please modify or delete your post

We don't need to be improving the enemies' bills for them

wally626 · January 27, 2013, 09:52 PM

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.

tomrkba · January 27, 2013, 10:08 PM

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.

gc70 · January 27, 2013, 10:18 PM

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.

Landis · January 27, 2013, 11:50 PM

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.

January 27, 2013, 04:18 PM	#1
enstorm Senior Member Join Date: August 11, 2005 Posts: 217	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.

January 27, 2013, 07:00 PM	#2
Dr Big Bird PhD Senior Member Join Date: October 26, 2012 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 779	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

January 27, 2013, 07:27 PM	#3
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	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.

January 27, 2013, 08:08 PM	#4
speedrrracer Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2011 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 317	enstorm, please modify or delete your post We don't need to be improving the enemies' bills for them

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.