Are old hunting semi-auto hunting rifles being affect by proposed ban?

redraif · January 17, 2013, 03:07 PM

So I still have my granfathers rifles. Have not been able to go to the range yet or get a staight answer from my Mother on if I can just buy them both from Grams myself. She only wants me to keep one... grrr...

Now they are 22 caliber semi automatics. I just wonder if they are affected by the proposed ban? If so it might be just the right loop hole to get mom to let me keep them in the family... wink wink

Mossberg 151K (1950-1951)
Remington 550-1 (Feb. 1960)

So do you think hey will be affected?

The one newer semi auto rifle I do want will be affected and cant be found locally...
beretta cx4 storm in a 40 caliber.
I see a trip to the gun show or buying one off gunbroker. Im betting the gunshows are going to be outrageous and I just hate buying like that in an auction. Hard to blindly send that kind of money to someone and trust you will get said item!

Scorch · January 17, 2013, 05:27 PM

Probably not. No detachable magazines. But nobody knows for sure, there isn't even a proposed bill yet.

tahunua001 · January 17, 2013, 05:33 PM

Scorch, I've heard that the proposed bill is already finished and as of yesterday it was announced that it'll pretty much just be the clinton ban with all the fixins all over again plus some extra stuff to make it sound like it will really work this time.

your guns will be fine RedRaif, the magazines are non detachable so they will not be affected. the CX4 will be ban compliant with nothing more than a 10 round magazine. buying some of the higher capacity magazines may be easier than the guns themselves so I would buy a couple mags now and then after all the hubbub dies down things start to come back in stock for decent prices buy the gun.

hodaka · January 17, 2013, 06:59 PM

I would wait on the new rifle Red. My guess is that the craziness will end by summer..............but I may be wrong. Still, today's prices are nonsense.

Art Eatman · January 17, 2013, 07:53 PM

The Senate is not a shoo-in, and the House is likely to kill anything of any significance.

The thing to do is look up the Bill numbers and follow them via Thomas Locator or some equivalent. Which sub-committee of which committee, etc. Hearings and all that.

Don't waste time and psychic energy speculating on the meaning of the latest rumor, whatever that might be.

Dfariswheel · January 17, 2013, 08:22 PM

As Art says, wait until something concrete is proposed and follow that.

As for "Will this be banned"? questions, no one knows and there are slip ups made.

As example, the New York law apparently doesn't take effect until March.
Today they discovered that unless they change the new law, when it takes effect it will be a crime for New York law enforcement on all levels to possess any magazines over 7 rounds.

Since all New York state and city cops carry at least 15 round mags, this constitutes one of those "Oops" things the fools failed to consider in the rush to look proactive.

There are some inconsiderate people asking questions in New York like:
"Why should a retired cop be allowed to have 15 round magazines? He's not a working cop any more and doesn't need them for self defense any more then "civilians" do.".

And:
"If 7 rounds is enough for a citizen, why do the police need 15 rounds. If they're afraid of being out-gunned by criminals, what am I? Chopped liver"?

Colokeb · January 17, 2013, 09:03 PM

Folks, this is the first salvo. If some add-drugged kid takes his Moms old grampa handmedown 30-30 and does a rerun, they will add those too.

redraif · January 17, 2013, 09:12 PM

I'm on the fence only because I also heard these guns are discontinued as well. If the ban does not pass... will this gun even still be available???? Wish I had a crystal ball... lol

James K · January 17, 2013, 09:31 PM

As I understand the proposed federal law, it would ban internal, non detachable magazines holding over 10 rounds except for .22's with tubular magazines. It would also ban semi-automatic shotguns and pump rifles and shotguns. An early report said it would also include lever action rifles, but that appears to have been dropped. The NY law apparently includes all of the above but sets a 7 round limit, with the explicit purpose of banning the M1 rifle, SKS, and Johnson, as well as dozens of rifles "capable of taking" a magazine over 7 rounds, and those magazines.

There was also talk in MD of including a handgun ban and just ignoring any state or federal court decision that went against them. Courts depend on the executive branch to enforce their decisions. At this time, it is possible that neither the president nor some governors would obey any pro-gun court order and no one would have the power to do anything about it.

Upholding the Constitution ultimately depends on the good faith of the executive who controls the police and armed services. If the executive acts in bad faith and chooses not to enforce the laws or court orders, or not to obey the constitution, there is nothing anyone can do, certainly not a disarmed populace.

Jim

oneoldsap · January 18, 2013, 06:40 AM

All done via executive order , Barry's the man ! ! ! I still hate his guts though !

Saltydog235 · January 18, 2013, 08:15 AM

Nothing I own is banned or will be, the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right to me no matter what a bunch of pansy, holier than thou, do as I say not as I do, rich, politicians tell me.

Scorch · January 18, 2013, 12:10 PM

The President and Congress both derive their authority from the Constitution, not the other way around, no matter what they think. The Constitution derives its authority from The People, despite statements to the contrary from Washington, DC. The 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state that any right not assigned is retained by The People, but we would be asking the usurpers to agree that they have no right to regulate arms.

Art Eatman · January 18, 2013, 11:04 PM

oneoldsap, if you actually read what Obama suggested--not ordered, actually--it puts everything meaningful to Congress, which means "our" House of Representatives must approve the various idiotic bills which are being submitted. Not much likelihood of that.

johnwilliamson062 · January 19, 2013, 12:42 AM

Also, don't start freaking out when a bill is introduced with absurd restriction and ten co-sponsors. There are a couple ridiculous ban bill introduced every session that never make it out of committee.

When something that seems almost moderate with 50 or 100 co-sponsors is announced start calling and writing like crazy.

giaquir · January 19, 2013, 06:14 AM

Also, don't start freaking out when a bill is introduced with absurd restriction and ten co-sponsors. There are a couple ridiculous ban bill introduced every session that never make it out of committee.

Tell that to the New Yorkers

oneoldsap · January 19, 2013, 10:22 AM

I hope you're right Art ! I,m off to the rally at the statehouse today .

Art Eatman · January 19, 2013, 12:57 PM

The New York and California legislatures have agendas which are totally unrelated to reality and "public input" is meaningless. Nothing we can do to affect them. But we can affect the US House of Representatives.

oneoldsap · January 20, 2013, 04:03 PM

Well we had somewhere between 200 and 250 people show up at the statehouse yesterday . I didn't think that was a very good turnout , for such serious business . Then I read today that only a couple of hundred showed in Raleigh NC , which makes our turnout look pretty good here in VT . Folks need to get much more serious about defending the 2nd Ammendent ! I implore all of you / us to get involved in some way , shape or form !

coyota1 · January 20, 2013, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Also, don't start freaking out when a bill is introduced with absurd restriction and ten co-sponsors. There are a couple ridiculous ban bill introduced every session that never make it out of committee.

Tell that to the New Yorkers

Yeah, tell them.

Ben Towe · January 21, 2013, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Have not been able to go to the range yet or get a staight answer from my Mother on if I can just buy them both from Grams myself. She only wants me to keep one... grrr...

How old are you?

breakingcontact · January 21, 2013, 01:25 PM

Not by this current proposed ban, but by a future one? Surely.

oneoldsap · January 21, 2013, 02:26 PM

First , registration (so they know where they are) , then confiscation ! There was a bill proposed in Vermont ( S-32 ) , that couldn't even garner a co sponsor ! It's History today . Conservatives believe what they see , Liberals see what they believe !

Art Eatman · January 22, 2013, 11:31 AM

No point in getting all in a swivet, at this point. Speculation is a waste of time and bandwidth. All we can do for now is wait and see--and write to the Congresscritters.

January 17, 2013, 03:07 PM	#1
redraif Member Join Date: January 3, 2013 Posts: 59	Are old hunting semi-auto hunting rifles being affect by proposed ban? So I still have my granfathers rifles. Have not been able to go to the range yet or get a staight answer from my Mother on if I can just buy them both from Grams myself. She only wants me to keep one... grrr... Now they are 22 caliber semi automatics. I just wonder if they are affected by the proposed ban? If so it might be just the right loop hole to get mom to let me keep them in the family... wink wink Mossberg 151K (1950-1951) Remington 550-1 (Feb. 1960) So do you think hey will be affected? The one newer semi auto rifle I do want will be affected and cant be found locally... beretta cx4 storm in a 40 caliber. I see a trip to the gun show or buying one off gunbroker. Im betting the gunshows are going to be outrageous and I just hate buying like that in an auction. Hard to blindly send that kind of money to someone and trust you will get said item!

January 17, 2013, 05:27 PM	#2
Scorch Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: Washington state Posts: 15,248	Probably not. No detachable magazines. But nobody knows for sure, there isn't even a proposed bill yet. __________________ Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services

January 17, 2013, 05:33 PM	#3
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	Scorch, I've heard that the proposed bill is already finished and as of yesterday it was announced that it'll pretty much just be the clinton ban with all the fixins all over again plus some extra stuff to make it sound like it will really work this time. your guns will be fine RedRaif, the magazines are non detachable so they will not be affected. the CX4 will be ban compliant with nothing more than a 10 round magazine. buying some of the higher capacity magazines may be easier than the guns themselves so I would buy a couple mags now and then after all the hubbub dies down things start to come back in stock for decent prices buy the gun. __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin Last edited by tahunua001; January 17, 2013 at 07:03 PM.

January 18, 2013, 12:10 PM	#12
Scorch Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: Washington state Posts: 15,248	The President and Congress both derive their authority from the Constitution, not the other way around, no matter what they think. The Constitution derives its authority from The People, despite statements to the contrary from Washington, DC. The 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state that any right not assigned is retained by The People, but we would be asking the usurpers to agree that they have no right to regulate arms. __________________ Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 17, 2013, 06:59 PM	#4
hodaka Senior Member Join Date: April 23, 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 2,010	I would wait on the new rifle Red. My guess is that the craziness will end by summer..............but I may be wrong. Still, today's prices are nonsense.

January 17, 2013, 07:53 PM	#5
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	The Senate is not a shoo-in, and the House is likely to kill anything of any significance. The thing to do is look up the Bill numbers and follow them via Thomas Locator or some equivalent. Which sub-committee of which committee, etc. Hearings and all that. Don't waste time and psychic energy speculating on the meaning of the latest rumor, whatever that might be.

January 17, 2013, 08:22 PM	#6
Dfariswheel Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2001 Posts: 7,478	As Art says, wait until something concrete is proposed and follow that. As for "Will this be banned"? questions, no one knows and there are slip ups made. As example, the New York law apparently doesn't take effect until March. Today they discovered that unless they change the new law, when it takes effect it will be a crime for New York law enforcement on all levels to possess any magazines over 7 rounds. Since all New York state and city cops carry at least 15 round mags, this constitutes one of those "Oops" things the fools failed to consider in the rush to look proactive. There are some inconsiderate people asking questions in New York like: "Why should a retired cop be allowed to have 15 round magazines? He's not a working cop any more and doesn't need them for self defense any more then "civilians" do.". And: "If 7 rounds is enough for a citizen, why do the police need 15 rounds. If they're afraid of being out-gunned by criminals, what am I? Chopped liver"?

January 17, 2013, 09:03 PM	#7
Colokeb Member Join Date: February 15, 2008 Location: west Posts: 86	Folks, this is the first salvo. If some add-drugged kid takes his Moms old grampa handmedown 30-30 and does a rerun, they will add those too.

January 17, 2013, 09:12 PM	#8
redraif Member Join Date: January 3, 2013 Posts: 59	I'm on the fence only because I also heard these guns are discontinued as well. If the ban does not pass... will this gun even still be available???? Wish I had a crystal ball... lol

January 17, 2013, 09:31 PM	#9
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	As I understand the proposed federal law, it would ban internal, non detachable magazines holding over 10 rounds except for .22's with tubular magazines. It would also ban semi-automatic shotguns and pump rifles and shotguns. An early report said it would also include lever action rifles, but that appears to have been dropped. The NY law apparently includes all of the above but sets a 7 round limit, with the explicit purpose of banning the M1 rifle, SKS, and Johnson, as well as dozens of rifles "capable of taking" a magazine over 7 rounds, and those magazines. There was also talk in MD of including a handgun ban and just ignoring any state or federal court decision that went against them. Courts depend on the executive branch to enforce their decisions. At this time, it is possible that neither the president nor some governors would obey any pro-gun court order and no one would have the power to do anything about it. Upholding the Constitution ultimately depends on the good faith of the executive who controls the police and armed services. If the executive acts in bad faith and chooses not to enforce the laws or court orders, or not to obey the constitution, there is nothing anyone can do, certainly not a disarmed populace. Jim

January 18, 2013, 06:40 AM	#10
oneoldsap Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 2009 Location: I live in the foot of the Green Mountains of Vermont Posts: 1,602	All done via executive order , Barry's the man ! ! ! I still hate his guts though !

January 18, 2013, 08:15 AM	#11
Saltydog235 Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2010 Location: Pawleys Island Posts: 1,563	Nothing I own is banned or will be, the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right to me no matter what a bunch of pansy, holier than thou, do as I say not as I do, rich, politicians tell me.

January 18, 2013, 11:04 PM	#13
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	oneoldsap, if you actually read what Obama suggested--not ordered, actually--it puts everything meaningful to Congress, which means "our" House of Representatives must approve the various idiotic bills which are being submitted. Not much likelihood of that.

January 19, 2013, 12:42 AM	#14
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	Also, don't start freaking out when a bill is introduced with absurd restriction and ten co-sponsors. There are a couple ridiculous ban bill introduced every session that never make it out of committee. When something that seems almost moderate with 50 or 100 co-sponsors is announced start calling and writing like crazy.

January 19, 2013, 06:14 AM	#15
giaquir Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2006 Location: Deerfield,New Hampshire Posts: 512	Also, don't start freaking out when a bill is introduced with absurd restriction and ten co-sponsors. There are a couple ridiculous ban bill introduced every session that never make it out of committee. Tell that to the New Yorkers

January 19, 2013, 10:22 AM	#16
oneoldsap Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 2009 Location: I live in the foot of the Green Mountains of Vermont Posts: 1,602	I hope you're right Art ! I,m off to the rally at the statehouse today .

January 19, 2013, 12:57 PM	#17
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	The New York and California legislatures have agendas which are totally unrelated to reality and "public input" is meaningless. Nothing we can do to affect them. But we can affect the US House of Representatives.

January 20, 2013, 04:03 PM	#18
oneoldsap Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 2009 Location: I live in the foot of the Green Mountains of Vermont Posts: 1,602	Well we had somewhere between 200 and 250 people show up at the statehouse yesterday . I didn't think that was a very good turnout , for such serious business . Then I read today that only a couple of hundred showed in Raleigh NC , which makes our turnout look pretty good here in VT . Folks need to get much more serious about defending the 2nd Ammendent ! I implore all of you / us to get involved in some way , shape or form !

January 21, 2013, 01:25 PM	#21
breakingcontact Junior member Join Date: October 25, 2012 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 736	Not by this current proposed ban, but by a future one? Surely.

January 21, 2013, 02:26 PM	#22
oneoldsap Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 2009 Location: I live in the foot of the Green Mountains of Vermont Posts: 1,602	First , registration (so they know where they are) , then confiscation ! There was a bill proposed in Vermont ( S-32 ) , that couldn't even garner a co sponsor ! It's History today . Conservatives believe what they see , Liberals see what they believe !

January 22, 2013, 11:31 AM	#23
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	No point in getting all in a swivet, at this point. Speculation is a waste of time and bandwidth. All we can do for now is wait and see--and write to the Congresscritters.