Jump to content
308AR.com Community
  • Visit Brownells
  • Visit AR15 Builder
  • Visit
  • Visit Site
  • Visit Beachin Tactical
  • Visit
  • Visit Ballistic Advantage
  • Visit Aero Precision
  • Visit Cabelas
  • Visit Faxon

Recommended Posts

  Another weapons ban for the frakenstine !

On Wednesday, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 2095, which she is calling the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017. The 125-page firearm prohibition fever dream is perhaps the most far-reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress.

Subject to an exception for “grandfathered” firearms, the bill would prohibit AR-15s and dozens of other semi-automatic rifles by name (as well as their “variants” or “altered facsimiles”), and any semi-automatic rifle that could accept a detachable magazine and be equipped with a pistol grip, an adjustable or detachable stock, or a barrel shroud. And that’s just a partial list. “Pistol grip” would be defined as “a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip,” meaning the ban could implicate even traditional stocks or grips specifically designed to comply with existing state “assault weapon” laws.

Needless to say, semi-automatic shotguns and handguns would get similar treatment. 

Also banned would be any magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds or even any magazine that could be “readily restored, changed, or converted to accept” more than 10 rounds.

While Feinstein’s bill would graciously allow those who lawfully owned the newly-banned guns at the time of the law’s enactment to keep them, it would impose strict storage requirements any time the firearm was not actually in the owner’s hands or within arm’s reach. Violations would be punishable (of course) by imprisonment.

Owners of grandfathered “assault weapons” could also go to prison for allowing someone else to borrow or buy the firearm, unless the transfer was processed through a licensed firearms dealer. The dealer would be required to document the transaction and run a background check on the recipient.

Should lawful owners of the newly-banned firearms and magazines decide that the legal hazards of keeping them were too much, the bill would authorize the use of taxpayer dollars in the form of federal grants to establish programs to provide “compensation” for their surrender to the government.

This bill is nothing more than a rehash of Feinstein’s failed experiment in banning “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds.  Except this time, Feinstein would like to go even further in restricting law-abiding Americans’ access to firearms and magazines that are commonly owned for lawful self-defense.  

The congressionally-mandated study of the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004 found that the ban had little, if any, impact on crime, in part because “the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction” of firearm related crime.

Don’t let Dianne Feinstein infringe on our Second Amendment rights with a policy that’s been proven to do nothing to stop crime. Please contact your U.S. Senators and encourage them to oppose S. 2095.  You can contact your U.S. Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121, or click here to Take Action.

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She won't stop. Ever. She needs to just retire, and go somewhere and STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, if you read that linked document, she had staffers looks up every kind of manufacturer that they could, and specifically list them.  It's troubling that she just wants to ban Olympic Arms completely...

5a0734cc5f073_FuksteinBanProposal.thumb.png.4cba73758002c680a046211d5cb6b87c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed it, but I see Springfield Armory's M1A no where on any list. M1 Garands are apparently OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That means her "researches and staffers" suck.  I'm alright with everything that they think they know, but don't.  And left off her "list." 

Gun-Grabbing Politicians just plain suck a$s... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 98Z5V said:

That means her "researches and staffers" suck.  I'm alright with everything that they think they know, but don't.  And left off her "list." 

Gun-Grabbing Politicians just plain suck a$s... 

Testify, brother Tom.:hail:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sisco said:

M1 Garands are apparently OK.

Yep. Cause they're not assault rifles in any way, now are they. Let's try and find some Germans that were at Normandy, and ask them if they thought the Garand was an assault rifle. :laffs:

Screw Feinstein and all of the others on the hill like her. It never ceases to amaze me how people that no NOTHING about weapons, are the ones that try to make up the rules. Fukin retard politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just how it works man...nothing is scarier than something you don't understand. When all you know about something is what your imagination can dream up and what you've seen in the movies...I'm sure you can come up with some pretty terrifying things. 

Top it off with the fact that they don't really care and they're just playing the politician role...they'll never get it, and they don't really care if they do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rsquared said:

Yep. Cause they're not assault rifles in any way, now are they. Let's try and find some Germans that were at Normandy, and ask them if they thought the Garand was an assault rifle. :laffs:

Screw Feinstein and all of the others on the hill like her. It never ceases to amaze me how people that no NOTHING about weapons, are the ones that try to make up the rules. Fukin retard politicians.

Happened to tune into "Parts Unknown"  With Anthony Bourdain in New Mexico the other night. He goes out with some guys and an AR15 and a few other firearms into the desert. Interesting his comments as someone who is not that familiar with firearms. Says something to the effect of: "Some of the strongly anti-gun people I know should come out here with you guys". 

Keep this in mind, however; IF the Democrats dropped their stance on Black Rifles and firearms in general, they would probably be in control of the White House , the Senate, and Congress right now. Only reason we have a Republican up here right now is the Democrats anti gun platform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And conversely. ..only reason there isnt stronger gun laws since 2012 is because of Obama. The republicans HAD to oppose him every step or risk loosing votes. They dont actually care about our rights for the most part. If we had a punk republican in office like McCain or Romney I guarantee we would be knee deep into another federal ban of some degree. they would sell it sugar coated like they were doing us a favor like NRA and Regan "we made this tiny compromise because it would be worse if we didnt...we did it to protect your rights"  I voted for trump because he is not one of them (at least not yet) he doesnt play the game. He opens his big mouth and fires and worries about tomorrow, tomorrow.  Hope he can maintain that. His comment on the texas church shooting was PERFECT. no other major politician would have stood up there and blasted that one back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^  This, right here.

If we don't get these career politicians OUT, and get fresh meat in charge, that isn't corrupted, we'll have a gun ban again some day.

I'm just glad I'm sitting on a solid, solid stack of bolt action rifles, as well...   :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of that.  I need to find a good Remington 700 Long Action magazine conversion...  I can't own a bolt gun that doesn't take magazines...   :laffs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

retire? FUK that she needs to be tried for treason and thrown in a deep black cell for not upholding the oath she took... eff her and all the other flower sniffer tree hugging Kumbye ya singing A$$holes in California!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, blue109 said:

I voted for trump because he is not one of them (at least not yet) he doesnt play the game. He opens his big mouth and fires and worries about tomorrow, tomorrow.  Hope he can maintain that. His comment on the texas church shooting was PERFECT. no other major politician would have stood up there and blasted that one back. 

You got that right! Thank God he won, thank God he won, thank God he won!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2017 at 11:35 AM, 98Z5V said:

Wow, if you read that linked document, she had staffers looks up every kind of manufacturer that they could, and specifically list them.  It's troubling that she just wants to ban Olympic Arms completely...

5a0734cc5f073_FuksteinBanProposal.thumb.png.4cba73758002c680a046211d5cb6b87c.png

Wait... so an SKS with a detachable magazine is an AR-type rifle (see page 7. line 8)?

Huh... Who'da thunkit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2017 at 1:09 PM, Sisco said:

Maybe I missed it, but I see Springfield Armory's M1A no where on any list. M1 Garands are apparently OK.

M1 Carbines (with "standard fixed stock") and M1 Garands (with fixed 8 round capacity and fixed stock) are specifically exempted from her bill.

However, I see no mention anywhere of M14s, M1As, etc. -- I even searched the document (Ctrl+F).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, COBrien said:

M1 Carbines (with "standard fixed stock") and M1 Garands (with fixed 8 round capacity and fixed stock) are specifically exempted from her bill.

However, I see no mention anywhere of M14s, M1As, etc. -- I even searched the document (Ctrl+F).

so did I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting observation...

The Ruger Mini-14 is specifically exempted from this bill, so long as it does not have a folding/telescoping stock or pistol grip.

However, the Mini-14 Tactical does have a threaded barrel. So, would a Mini-14 Tactical, in a "traditional" synthetic stock, with a threaded barrel be a "semiautomatic assault weapon'? It's specifically excluded...

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
(i) A pistol grip.
(ii) A forward grip.
(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
(v) A barrel shroud.
(vi) A threaded barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the folding stock with pistol grip have to be attached? Also I understand firearms already owned are grandfathered and will remain legal to the present owners. 

These stupid laws only pose a problem to the liberals that don't have a clue how to build something more deadly than a firearm. Look at what terrorists can do with a IED, a Home Depot rental truck, a pressure cooker. Or a roll of baling wire. or a thousand other items. Throw Feinstine under a dump truck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrmackc said:

Does the folding stock with pistol grip have to be attached? Also I understand firearms already owned are grandfathered and will remain legal to the present owners. 

These stupid laws only pose a problem to the liberals that don't have a clue how to build something more deadly than a firearm. Look at what terrorists can do with a IED, a Home Depot rental truck, a pressure cooker. Or a roll of baling wire. or a thousand other items. Throw Feinstine under a dump truck!

Unfortunately you are right Mrmac,  not going to go into details, but lets be thankful it hasn't happened yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this and the purpose of this bill, quoted from the first paragraph, "is to ensure that the right of the people to bear arms does not go unchecked". 

Umm, what ever happened to "shall not be infringed". ??? 

This bill is inherently unconstitutional. Dismissed.Case closed. Next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, COBrien said:

The Ruger Mini-14 is specifically exempted from this bill

So that stupid statement by Bill Ruger about ten rounds being enough is still paying political benefits for ruger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  We all know that banning high capacity mags thing is pure BS , 5 rds 10 rds , 20 rds, 30+ rds , doesn't mean a thing , if someone wants to shoot people , they will just have multiple firearms or be good at reloading them .

     They want all firearms banned , period !   This would be the beginning of it .

  I'm in no way going to get rid of my twin SS BlackHawks in 45 Colt !:laffs: Besides ,they dont need no stinking evil high capacity Magazine things :lmao: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×