House to move toward vote on Assault Weapons ban - 1st time in decades

[pharmer]

If they get this they will go after that evil 9MM--this crowd will never stop.

Well, an "important person" has declared: "A 9mm will blow the lungs right out of a person!" Joe

 

[kwguy]

This could pass. We need to watch our hubris. This is the closest an AWB has come since the last one was passed in ‘94. It actually made it out of committee onto the floor in the House? I bet it would at least make it out of committee in the Senate and get to the floor. Given the right weekly climate and heartstrings/ media tug, I can see Republican senators betraying the 2A and signing onto this.

What the SC rules doesn’t matter. If an unjust law is passed, it’s passed. We’ll cry about it for a decade, hoping for another court case, whose ruling will again be ignored by legislative oppression.

This is dangerous and needs to be stopped.

 

[DMW1116]

In its current form it is a ban on sales and manufacture. However we all know what comes after that. It’s going to committee for mark-up next week. I have no doubt it will make it out of committee in the House. There were other AWBs that were actually passed in the House during the last administration but they died in the Senate a pretty quiet and quick death.

 

[Speedo66]

So my Mini-14 Ranch is not an assault weapon according to the list, but if it has a threaded barrel or a folding or adjustable stock, it is.

Makes a lot of sense, because either of those totally change its operation and abilities.

 

[Mk-211]

The Barrett M82 was CA legal until they banned 50's! Difi even said so, you can look up the original CA AWB and see that it was good to go!

 

[AlexanderA]

With the number of "assault weapons" that are out there, which someone said were in the 10s of millilons, I am wondering if someone will make the distinction between current ownership and future sales, and think they can get a bill through a lot easier if it only bans future manufacture and sales and lets current owners keep what they got?

That's exactly what this current bill would do. Even the antigunners know that they can't magically eliminate the current inventory of guns. This is not Australia. Their only hope is through gradual attrition.

 

[AlexanderA]

The OP was about a proposed assault weapon ban. If you think it advances the cause to focus on anti-personnel use of the gun and to dismiss sporting and hunting use, you are like the bicycle rider who has the right-of-way but not the mass of the F-250 that occupies the same space.

I'll admit that hunters and sport shooters could be valuable allies in preserving the RKBA. But, historically and legally, that's not what the 2nd Amendment is all about. And, to the extent that hunters and sport shooters are "Fudds," they can't be relied upon to support the weapons in question. Money quote: "Who needs an AR-15 for hunting?"

 

[LiveLife]

Silver lining ... Law makers who voted for it will be the target list to vote out in 2022 by gun owners.

Keep telling everyone who owns guns to vote for gun rights in upcoming elections.

 

[12Bravo20]

And, to the extent that hunters and sport shooters are "Fudds," they can't be relied upon to support the weapons in question.

I have to disagree with part of that statement. The reason is that the AR platform is very popular in a lot of different shooting sports. I doubt that all the people in sports shooting would want their preferred firearm banned.

Look at what USPSA just did, they pulled their Nationals out of Colorado due to that state's laws. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/uspsa-nationals-leave-colorado.907333/

 

[LiveLife]

Keep telling everyone who owns guns to vote for gun rights in upcoming elections.

And tell everyone else just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of "free speech" like email/text/online forums, the Second Amendment protects modern types of "arms" like magazines and semi-auto firearms. (Heller ruling and recent Supreme Court Bruen ruling said so)

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

Gee, isn't this terrible. The Democrats want to ban 'assault' rifles. When the Republicans had control of House and Senate - Great Leader Mitch McConnell did nothing to promote or let come to the floor Reciprocity and the SAGA act (one to ban state AWBs). Now, you might say that they couldn't pass given the filibuster and it would just be a gesture. However, they were happy to make gestures over Obama care, over and over. Wouldn't a proRKBA gesture or two be a good thing?

Think about it before the usual venting over ideological posturing from a known antigun party. To me this is another legislative yawn.

Second, think about why Scotus has avoided taking an AWB case. Supposedly sending cases back is a big deal - with years of screwing around probably - why not just take a clear case and make a clear decision (rather than their ambiguous blather)?

Instead, the Californian Communists are coming - Lion, Tigers and Bears - oh my!

I would think the huge amount of negative news coverage that would run 24/7 about a pro gun bill failing to pass would outweigh any positive benefit for attempting said bill

 

[Zerodefect]

So my Mini-14 Ranch is not an assault weapon according to the list, but if it has a threaded barrel or a folding or adjustable stock, it is.

Makes a lot of sense, because either of those totally change its operation and abilities.

Agreed, but they have no interest on such logic.

This is an emotional death rattle. It's meant to dupe complete morons into voting for inept potato Democrats.

Nobody on either side, actually thinks it'll do anything good.

 

[jmorris]

The dem party is not going to stop.

That’s why people like John Cornyn have to go. They are complicit in the erosion of our rights and we don’t need that from both sides.

The RINO’s are more dangerous that (D’s) IMO because they just suck up votes that are badly needed.

 

[AlexanderA]

Silver lining ... Law makers who voted for it will be the target list to vote out in 2022 by gun owners.

The lawmakers who vote for this -- and especially the ones who are co-sponsoring it -- see it as a net plus for their election chances in 2022. That's the way things roll in their deep blue districts. Gun owners have zero clout there.

Support candidates in marginal districts who do not vote for this legislation.

 

[rust collector]

I'll admit that hunters and sport shooters could be valuable allies in preserving the RKBA. But, historically and legally, that's not what the 2nd Amendment is all about. And, to the extent that hunters and sport shooters are "Fudds," they can't be relied upon to support the weapons in question. Money quote: "Who needs an AR-15 for hunting?"

Your position seems to be that ARs are made primarily for killing and that is why they are protected. Good luck with that.

 

[AlexanderA]

Your position seems to be that ARs are made primarily for killing and that is why they are protected. Good luck with that.

OK, explain what they are made primarily for, if not for killing. (Justified killing, I might add.) This reminds me of the silly campaign to dub AR's "modern sporting rifles." It doesn't fool anyone. In fact, it's an insult to the intelligence.

"Weapons of war" are precisely what are protected by the 2nd Amendment. If you don't like the concept, join the antigunners in repealing the 2nd Amendment.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I've never killed anything with any of my "assault rifles" and I doubt that I ever will.
What's with you and killing?

 

[N555]

This is a perfect example of what happens when "you work with gun grabbers".
They take what they can today and come back for what they were really after a few weeks later.

 

[GEM]

One lives where one lives. I live in a gun unfriendly state at the state level.

Your position seems to be that ARs are made primarily for killing and that is why they are protected. Good luck with that.

That is exactly the 2A amendment reason for having them. They are not sporting arms or toys. Hunting is irrelevant as you hunt with a Ruger One that is kept in the gun club until checked out to hunt.

The constitutional protection exists for their use as weapons. SD, defense against tyranny, invasion (unlikely) - insurrection by the proponents of domestic tyranny (right or left wing).

They are deadly weapons. Not being fully auto (the MSR blather) is ridiculous as we see the damage they do in a short amount of time. I could shoot 50 ish targets with only 3 points down in real time. Patton called a clip loaded 8 shot semi the finest battle rifle. You are not going to convince anyone with a 30 round semi is a toy for fun and/or little rodents.

The surge in gun purchases recently is not for sports or hunting. It is for the potential Constitutional usage of weapons. Even the militia clause (debated) is not for the militia to turn out for rodents. It is to fight or deter the need to fight.

They exist for their lethal constitutional purpose, otherwise they are too dangerous to be in general public hands.

As for 'insulting' our allies. If they are counterproductive, they need to be educated they are negative assets. If they get huffy, tough. Get out of the political kitchen.

 

[N555]

I use an AR for hunting.
One of my goals is to get a coyote kill with my 40mm grenade launder.

 

[GEM]

I support the use for hunting but why not having just a bolt gun that is kept locked up and unloaded as in many other countries? That's the safe way. Police inspections to make sure that the gun is kept that way is common in countries that allow guns for hunting and sport!

Rachel Maddow is a gun fan and shoots an AR and 1911. She loves shooting but wants the guns locked up in the gun club to be checked out.

Hunting is irrelevant. Sports are irrelevant - spoke by someone who enjoys both.

 

[LiveLife]

Keep in mind what truly matters is what the Supreme Court recently ruled.

Justice Thomas eloquently stated in the Bruen ruling (With supporting opinion by justice Kavanaugh) that "modern" magazine fed semi-auto rifles such as AR15 have been "in common use" like emails/texts and not "dangerous" to be used for self-defense.

"Weapons of war" are precisely what are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Last I checked, knives are still used as "weapons of war" and legal to use for self defense, so are shotguns.

 

[GEM]

Let's see if the state bans go away with his eloquence.

 

[General Geoff]

Hunting is irrelevant. Sports are irrelevant - spoke by someone who enjoys both.

Bingo. Sporting and hunting arms in tightly controlled and regulated environments are not a political issue, almost every country in the world allows hunting and sport shooting of some sort with the appropriate licensure, storage, background checks, periodic inspections, etc.

What the 2A protects is both the individual and collective need for defense against a professional military level force. You can't effectively protect your community with a single shot Olympic sporting rifle or even a .30-06 bolt action hunting rifle. You need modern autoloading rifles at the minimum, and in my opinion you also need reasonable access to other modern warfare implements like belt fed machine guns, MANPADs, and explosives. These SHOULD all be protected under the 2A.

 

[N555]

Gasoline is a weapon of war.