The CA mag “surrender” was defeated in Fed court - have all states grandfathered mags?

The Liberal said:

An assault weapon is a hand-held, braced or shoulder-fired semiautomatic firearm with a designed or aftermarket detachable magazine capacity in excess of eight projectiles. That’s my definition.

Of course, an actual firearms historian will tell you that the concept of an assault weapon was born during the First World War and came to fruition in the Second, and that it differs from the prior philosophy of “battle rifles” by emphasizing ergonomic factors and ammunition capacity over power and range.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a dandy close-quarters Self Defense weapon.

Why are you so focused on inanimate objects that scare you... and not on the will that uses them for evil?

GR

Pudge said:

So, some Mini 14's are assault rifles, and therefore dangerous to society, and some aren't (either assault rifles or dangerous to society). Makes as much sense as getting rid of the Minis which fit the definition of assault rifle would make us safer.

Click to expand...

Yes , here is CA definition of assault rifle .

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

Metal God said:

Yes , here is CA definition of assault rifle .

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

Click to expand...

The really frustrating thing is that, to us gunfolk, knowledgeable about firearms, most of these additional characteristics or features are, for the most part, purely cosmetic. A pistol grip or a thumbhole stock do not fundamentally change the working characteristics of the weapon in question for example.
I understand the goal is to make guns go away. They're starting with the scary looking guns that don't kill any more effectively than a Hello Kitty version of a semi auto rifle. They convince the public of the false narrative that these are the guns most used by mass shooters and that every American is in danger walking around with these guns out there.

Texas10mm said:

So a Ruger 10/22 is an "assault weapon" but a Marlin model 60 isn't?

Click to expand...

They're both assault weapons in WA now. Whoever wrote i-1639 must have been paying attention to gun forums constantly pointing out that features don't make a weapon more dangerous, so they just defined every semi-auto rifle as an assault rifle. No exemptions for non-rifle or rimfire calibers.

BLB68 said:

They're both assault weapons in WA now. Whoever wrote i-1639 must have been paying attention to gun forums constantly pointing out that features don't make a weapon more dangerous, so they just defined every semi-auto rifle as an assault rifle. No exemptions for non-rifle or rimfire calibers.

Click to expand...

Washington is circling the drain. Oregon is right behind them. IMHO it would behoove any gun owner that can to pack up and move.

BLB68 said:

They're both assault weapons in WA now. Whoever wrote i-1639 must have been paying attention to gun forums constantly pointing out that features don't make a weapon more dangerous, so they just defined every semi-auto rifle as an assault rifle. No exemptions for non-rifle or rimfire calibers.

Click to expand...

A wise choice that makes accessing uniquely deadly tools more difficult.

The Liberal said:

A wise choice that makes accessing uniquely deadly tools more difficult.

Click to expand...

Surely you have fact-based evidence to support this assertion?

Edit: Before you answer, I suggest you actually read the text of I-1639. Then you can more accurately pontificate on the wisdom of the initiative.

The deadliest objects in America are humans in automobiles and humans under the influence of alcohol or drugs and often operating automobiles. Yet I do not hear anti-Constitutionalists clamoring for the banning of these things that are not guaranteed as rights.
I guess if it’s okay to take away rights maybe we should really look at restricting this so-called freedom of speech. It seems that speech is a mighty weapon and it has been said the pen is mightier than the sword, which by the way, are not mentioned in the Constitution either.

Enough of my rambling...on with the show...

Walkalong said:

The antis have never worried about facts, since they so often get in the way of their agenda.

Click to expand...

Yep, it's always, "I feel like" nobody needs them. "I feel safer" when I don't see "assault weapons" in my neighborhood. "I feel like" there is too much "gun violence". All feelings, but the facts prove otherwise. There are plenty of legitimate, legal uses for small-caliber, standard-capacity rifles that can be adapted to different purposes. There is evidence that areas with stringent gun-control laws are less safe than areas where the criminals don't know who might be armed (more people died in Chicago last Labor Day than in most "mass" shootings). And, despite what the media and politicians claim, shootings are a small part of what makes up death in this country, made even smaller when you remove suicides, and made WAY smaller, when you only consider the weapons that are "the problem".

The Liberal said:

A wise choice that makes accessing uniquely deadly tools more difficult.

Click to expand...

Why are you on this forum? Inquiring minds want to know.


" ...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"Shall not." : an imperative, NOT a request.
"Infringed": 1.) To intrude into, or onto. 2.) To diminish.

"The deadliest implement of the soldier is the birthright of an American," one of the creepy cisgendered males who was around when this country was formed and understood his fellow patriots' intentions.

The Liberal, are you aware that the production of semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines was begun in 1907? Seems to me that the basic function has not changed, so in that case is it not people's behavior?

Further, please show me any law which has served to reduce the rate of criminal wrong-doing with firearms. I've been searching for an answer to this question for over forty years--and still no answer.

Note that while the numbers of ARs and AKs increased during the Clinton years of the ban, firearms homicide rates declined. That decline continued after the sunset of the ban. IOW, millions were added to the firearms numbers yet the homicide rate declined. Please explain this in light of your opinion about the ARs and AKs.

I’m here because I believe in robust gun control and I’ll not be bullied out of the RKBA by zealots. The 2A has always had reasonable limits.

I missed the bullying..... along with any answers to anyone's questions. Either way I'm out before the lock

The Liberal said:

I’m here because I believe in robust gun control and I’ll not be bullied out of the RKBA by zealots. The 2A has always had reasonable limits.

Click to expand...

I know you're confused. This isn't Mom's Demand Action or some other feel good site. This is a forum devoted to the shooting sports. You really don't belong here.

There's no proof that "robust gun control" stops crime.

The United States is a place where ‘robust gun control’ is expressly forbidden by our founding documents.

Tommygunn said:

Why are you on this forum? Inquiring minds want to know.

Click to expand...

Really? You cannot figure this one out by yourself?

Hint: In stories it is usually found under a bridge.

GBExpat said:

Really? You cannot figure this one out by yourself?

Hint: In stories it is usually found under a bridge.

Click to expand...

You DO know what a rhetorical question is .... ...... right?

Tommygunn said:

You DO know what a rhetorical question is .... ...... right?

Click to expand...

AAaaaaaahhhhhh ... got it.

The Liberal said:

I’ll not be bullied out of the RKBA by zealots.

Click to expand...

Yes you will, and you already have. You have been bullied so effectively that you have joined the bullies.

The Liberal said:

I actually think we should stop selling them, add existing semiautomatic weapons to the NFA roster, and then force would-be firearms owners to demonstrate safety, discipline and proficiency prior to being able to legally procure a weapon.

Click to expand...

The Liberal said:

The 2A has always had reasonable limits.

Click to expand...

You clearly don't believe this, otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting we need more and ridiculously strict "reasonable limits".

You "won't be bullied out of the RKBA"...yet you want ALL semi-autos on the NFA roster and to "FORCE" gun owners....."FORCE".
Lol, you are delusional, buddy.
And no, you don't belong here.

BLB68 said:

Surely you have fact-based evidence to support this assertion?

Click to expand...

Walkalong said:

The antis have never worried about facts, since they so often get in the way of their agenda.

Click to expand...

He has no facts or logic, which is why he has avoided answering most questions asked, but instead spouts another Leftist scare statement or related mush. All I'm hearing is "two legs bad, four legs good" over and over again.

JohnBiltz said:

An interesting thing about NJ they are required to turn magazines into the state police, as of last week they have not had a single magazine turned in. Since the ban extends to off duty police. It seems that there are a fair number of police that are not complying as well as citizens.

Click to expand...

I didn't read all text posts yet.

This is "fake news". You are not required to turn in magazines to any one. That is just one option. You can move them out of state or permanently modify them to no more than 10 rds or destroy them.

Police can keep over 10 Rd mags for guns they carry and qualify with.

Retired LEOs can keep up to 15 Rd mags for handguns if they have a NJ Retired Police Officer carry permit and they qualify with the gun.

You are correct that there is no record of any one turning a magazine into any LE agency in NJ.

And yes the law is stupid and has zero effect on crime.

The Liberal said:

I’m here because I believe in robust gun control and I’ll not be bullied out of the RKBA by zealots. The 2A has always had reasonable limits.

Click to expand...

/
Why do you believe in robust gun control? What is the purpose of such legislation in your mind?