2008 weapons ban draft‏

Alaska Wild · November 21, 2008, 08:45 AM

FYI,
Seeing an opportunity to take advantage of a political majority the newest attempt to disarm America begins ... again....
Have a look; this bill seems to want to include every type of firearm on the market. Keep watching this, I am sure it will be revised multiple times before submission, but it just keeps happening.

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

stiffnecked · November 21, 2008, 08:55 AM

The list is fairly short. You really have to pay attention to how they have these things worded. Appendix A is the listing of acceptable, non-banned weapons.

The ones they are proposing to ban are listed below:

‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

johnnypi45 · November 21, 2008, 09:03 AM

Hahahaha....as hard as it is to find anything funny about this bill, i would certainly say their "list" of firearms at the end is goofy. It is obvious they could not NEARLY list all of the firearms manufactured in the US, and even if they could, it would make this bill at least twice as thick. I may be the only one who finds humor in this, but it really boggles the mind.

Petey

Musketeer · November 21, 2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

and there is the key to it all. Who decides what counts as a duplicate...

johnwilliamson062 · November 21, 2008, 11:22 AM

notice retired law enforcement gets whatever their old department will let them have and present law enforcement is totally excluded from the ban. At least that is how I read it. May have been the case before, but I didn't notice last time through.

In the tube magazine exception it is limited to .22 rimfires, what about smaller caliber rimfires?

Also why are they specifying bolt, lever, and break action rifles that are excepted? Don't they have to be semi-auto to be banned? What am I missing? There has to be an angle on restricting those actions also.

I would also love to know what Browning did to get their rifles exempted. I doubt they just said, well $3,000 rifles aren't used in crime so we won't ban the browning rifles.

Bartholomew Roberts · November 21, 2008, 12:36 PM

That bill is a retread using much of the same language as the 1994 AWB but reducing mag capacity to 5 rounds. Guess they don't like revolvers either. That particular bill was also introduced before the election and at least two of its sponsors got unelected. While an AWB of some kind is definitely going to be introduced, this particular one is going nowhere.

johnwilliamson062 · November 21, 2008, 02:04 PM

I believe there are some slight wording changes from the previous bill that have large effects. I would be very surprised if this bill, or one extremely close to it is not passed by next June. One thing to consider is the limitations in this bill pretty much make all the capital goods investment of the firearms companies worthless. They will have to retool a ton just accommodate the changes.

November 21, 2008, 08:45 AM	#1
Alaska Wild Member Join Date: November 15, 2008 Location: Alaska Posts: 18	2008 weapons ban draft‏ FYI, Seeing an opportunity to take advantage of a political majority the newest attempt to disarm America begins ... again.... Have a look; this bill seems to want to include every type of firearm on the market. Keep watching this, I am sure it will be revised multiple times before submission, but it just keeps happening. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-6257

November 21, 2008, 11:22 AM	#5
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	notice retired law enforcement gets whatever their old department will let them have and present law enforcement is totally excluded from the ban. At least that is how I read it. May have been the case before, but I didn't notice last time through. In the tube magazine exception it is limited to .22 rimfires, what about smaller caliber rimfires? Also why are they specifying bolt, lever, and break action rifles that are excepted? Don't they have to be semi-auto to be banned? What am I missing? There has to be an angle on restricting those actions also. I would also love to know what Browning did to get their rifles exempted. I doubt they just said, well $3,000 rifles aren't used in crime so we won't ban the browning rifles. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; November 21, 2008 at 11:29 AM.

November 21, 2008, 08:55 AM	#2
stiffnecked Member Join Date: December 11, 2006 Posts: 54	The list is fairly short. You really have to pay attention to how they have these things worded. Appendix A is the listing of acceptable, non-banned weapons. The ones they are proposing to ban are listed below: ‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as-- ‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); ‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; ‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); ‘(iv) Colt AR-15; ‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; ‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; ‘(vii) Steyr AUG; ‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and ‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

November 21, 2008, 09:03 AM	#3
johnnypi45 Member Join Date: April 12, 2008 Location: Colorado Posts: 81	Hahahaha....as hard as it is to find anything funny about this bill, i would certainly say their "list" of firearms at the end is goofy. It is obvious they could not NEARLY list all of the firearms manufactured in the US, and even if they could, it would make this bill at least twice as thick. I may be the only one who finds humor in this, but it really boggles the mind. Petey

November 21, 2008, 12:36 PM	#6
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	That bill is a retread using much of the same language as the 1994 AWB but reducing mag capacity to 5 rounds. Guess they don't like revolvers either. That particular bill was also introduced before the election and at least two of its sponsors got unelected. While an AWB of some kind is definitely going to be introduced, this particular one is going nowhere.

November 21, 2008, 02:04 PM	#7
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	I believe there are some slight wording changes from the previous bill that have large effects. I would be very surprised if this bill, or one extremely close to it is not passed by next June. One thing to consider is the limitations in this bill pretty much make all the capital goods investment of the firearms companies worthless. They will have to retool a ton just accommodate the changes.