Decided to ask this here

[Gregolian]

Instead of the WR since I don't want to deal with the BS of people who have never used a gun thinking that AR15s are machine guns.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/12/26957-report-senate-will-move-to-ban-handguns-assault-weapons/

Granted, it's a very right leaning sort of website but I was curious what other gun owners think about this proposed bill.

And I have a question too... what is this move from 2 characteristic test to a 1 characteristic test mean? Sounds like there only needs one thing to be qualified as a gun that can be banned under this Bill.

It really sounds like a good chance for people that are morons like Feinstein to ban shit that isn't even what it is that they are trying to ban.

 

[Uchi Mata]

It's hard for me to get over lines like:

"the left’s irrational desire to disarm American citizens in order to have its way with them"

Do right leaning folks really think that's what this is about? That having guns is what prevents politicians from enslaving citizens? That that's their real goal, and somehow your handgun is what stops it? Have you even considered that perhaps a lot of people don't like the idea of living in a society where if you rear end someone in traffic they might literally shoot you with an assault rifle? And that they don't think the best answer is that you should just have a rifle yourself so that you can shoot the other guy first? It's a dangerous and costly paranoia that indirectly results in things like the Newtown shooting.

The idea that guns are the last deterrent against tyranny is true in a sense, but for that to be true you need a lot of people to rise up alongside you and for the government not to be willing and able to crush you if you do so. For that to happen in the US, you'd need a whole lot of people who all thought it was a good idea to take to the streets and start shooting cops and military personnel, and you'd frankly need the national guard to refuse to put down the uprising because (thanks in part to years of overspending on the military) we have the largest and most competent army in the world and they could put down an organized rebellion if they so chose. If you start shooting cops you're a criminal, plain and simple. It would probably be a lot easier just to organize politically and actually work through the electoral process...though that only works if enough people share your batshit crazy paranoid view of the world, which they clearly don't based upon recent election results.

 

[The Mentalist]

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

I don't like this idea at all. More wasted government funds to keep track of grandfathered weapons. Also, I find it hard to believe 78% of people want a ban on handguns. That seems extremely high.

 

[Gregolian]

I don't like this idea at all. More wasted government funds to keep track of grandfathered weapons. Also, I find it hard to believe 78% of people want a ban on handguns. That seems extremely high.

I think it said 74% OPPOSE a ban on handguns, at least in that first about paragraph is what it said.

Could someone explain to me what it means about the 1 vs 2 characteristics thing? Is that like what was in the original AWB where they said it had to have 2 out of a list of things to be considered an "assault weapon"?

 

[SMEAC]

It's hard for me to get over lines like:

"the left

 

[TeTe]

No way it passes the house anyway. If they tried to pass something similar to what the Brady Bill was, it may have a chance. But the grandfathered weapons requirement will never be voted for.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Feinstein needs to back the eff up:

No compromise. Not one bit. "Shall not be infringed."

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Background checks, ID copies and prints are included in the original sales of the gun. Certification from local law enforcement - Are they going to come into my property or shall I take my "assault rifle" to the station where if they are anti they will most likely not sign off and I'll be screwed.
And where do they plan to get the funding for the implementation of ATF staff for this process?

Sidenote: This bill is being proposed by someone who has stated her ultimate goal is complete firearm confiscation. Also remember, this is the same person who stepped down after she was busted for moving government funds into her husband's companies.

 

[Gregolian]

She is also the c-word that doesn't know what a barrel shroud is and thought it was something on the back that flips up.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

Please read. Feinsteins latest additions to her proposed bill:

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

 

[Gregolian]

Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

Fuck her...

 

[new_mexico1]

The extra commentary in that article was crappy as hell.

 

[new_mexico1]

Feinstein needs to back the eff up:

No compromise. Not one bit. "Shall not be infringed."


Background checks, ID copies and prints are included in the original sales of the gun. Certification from local law enforcement - Are they going to come into my property or shall I take my "assault rifle" to the station where if they are anti they will most likely not sign off and I'll be screwed.
And where do they plan to get the funding for the implementation of ATF staff for this process?

Sidenote: This bill is being proposed by someone who has stated her ultimate goal is complete firearm confiscation. Also remember, this is the same person who stepped down after she was busted for moving government funds into her husband's companies.

I don't think the certification thing means they can just decide to not let you have the gun. It'll probably be something like getting a little certificate that shows your gun meets the proper criteria and is legal. There is little judgement in whether or not a gun is legal or not. Actually that whole section you quoted isn't all that bad. The only difference seems to be the fingerprint thing and transferee needing background checks. I personally don't think it's a big deal to require background checks on private sales and stuff as long as it's free or extremely cheap and easy for people to do.

Things like background checks on private sales are things gun owners should be pushing for. Small concessions that aren't a big deal but go a long way to make gun owners seem like they're not totally whacked out and willing to make compromise. Public perception actually matters in these things. If people don't see you as a whacky gun nut they are more likely to listen to your legit arguments and learn something. I think not wanting to budge on even the smallest things actually hurts us in the long run.

 

[computer fogie]

It's hard for me to get over lines like:

"the left

 

[The Mentalist]

I think it said 74% OPPOSE a ban on handguns, at least in that first about paragraph is what it said.

Could someone explain to me what it means about the 1 vs 2 characteristics thing? Is that like what was in the original AWB where they said it had to have 2 out of a list of things to be considered an "assault weapon"?

Goes to show how much attention I was paying. LOL.

 

[BPA00]

Could someone explain to me what it means about the 1 vs 2 characteristics thing? Is that like what was in the original AWB where they said it had to have 2 out of a list of things to be considered an "assault weapon"?

For example, I believe that under the old ban, if you had a rifle that had a pistol grip AND a folding stock, then that would be illegal... but you could own a rifle with one or the other and still be ok. I forget all the characteristics involved, but most of them were stupid and were related to how "scary" the gun looked versus what made it more dangerous.

 

[Gregolian]

For example, I believe that under the old ban, if you had a rifle that had a pistol grip AND a folding stock, then that would be illegal... but you could own a rifle with one or the other and still be ok. I forget all the characteristics involved, but most of them were stupid and were related to how "scary" the gun looked versus what made it more dangerous.

So, aesthetics before actual operation? Great.

 

[Roaming East]

So, aesthetics before actual operation? Great.

Gotta remember, most of the people clamoring for, and actually drafting, various gun control laws wouldnt know a headspace from their asshole. These are the clowns who dont know what a clip is, think a magazine is always detachable and that bayonet lugs are what makes a weapon an 'assault weapon'...

 

[Gregolian]

Gotta remember, most of the people clamoring for, and actually drafting, various gun control laws wouldnt know a headspace from their asshole. These are the clowns who dont know what a clip is, think a magazine is always detachable and that bayonet lugs are what makes a weapon an 'assault weapon'...

I'll show them a bayonet lug... it's called:


My foot, up.... well, you know where I'm going with this.

 

[SMEAC]

I don't think the certification thing means they can just decide to not let you have the gun. It'll probably be something like getting a little certificate that shows your gun meets the proper criteria and is legal. There is little judgement in whether or not a gun is legal or not. Actually that whole section you quoted isn't all that bad. The only difference seems to be the fingerprint thing and transferee needing background checks. I personally don't think it's a big deal to require background checks on private sales and stuff as long as it's free or extremely cheap and easy for people to do.

Things like background checks on private sales are things gun owners should be pushing for. Small concessions that aren't a big deal but go a long way to make gun owners seem like they're not totally whacked out and willing to make compromise. Public perception actually matters in these things. If people don't see you as a whacky gun nut they are more likely to listen to your legit arguments and learn something. I think not wanting to budge on even the smallest things actually hurts us in the long run.

I don't think you have an understanding of registering as NFA and the tax imposed under such. That and the extra involvement of the BATF

 

[Roaming East]

A lot of this BS could be avoided if firearms had a 'title' registration associated with them. Doing a point to point sell, would involve a transfer of weapon title, same as with selling a car, and would make it easier to track down and punish assholes who let their pieces get stolen or who allow their firearms to be used in the commission of a crime.

It would also allow you to have your property returned to you if stolen and later recovered or at the least claim insurance from theft/destruction. assuming of course firearm insurance ever becomes a thing...