New Gun Control Legislation

“The ability to buy a weapon that fires hundreds of bullets in less than a minute,” said Quigley. “He had an additional magazine capability. That’s not what a hunter needs. That’s not what someone needs to defend their home. That’s what you use to hunt people.”

Originally posted by SF Medic:
McCarthy having been through an incident like this has let her personal feelings and emotions cloud her judgment as a Member of Congress.

Gun control laws do nothing to stop the criminal from obtaining and using weapons to carry out their misdeeds.

If Congresswomen McCarthy wants to ban weapons, then herself along with other members of Congress must also be held accountable because they are the ones that wrote the laws and they are the ones that are also failing to accept responsibility for their actions.

Originally posted by coydog:

Quote

Originally posted by SF Medic:
[b] McCarthy having been through an incident like this has let her personal feelings and emotions cloud her judgment as a Member of Congress.

Gun control laws do nothing to stop the criminal from obtaining and using weapons to carry out their misdeeds.

If Congresswomen McCarthy wants to ban weapons, then herself along with other members of Congress must also be held accountable because they are the ones that wrote the laws and they are the ones that are also failing to accept responsibility for their actions.

And if NY state concealed carry holders were allowed to carry into new york shity someone on that cattle car commuter train may have ended the nut jobs tirade sooner and her hubby may still be alive. [/b]

Pending Magazine Ban Legislation in the U.S.


Just as I anticipated, in the wake of the Tucson shootings, the mainstream media and the congresscritters are on the war path! Mayor Bloomberg has the propaganda machine running overdrive with this week's Bloomberg Businessweek cover story. The cover of the Jan. 17, 2011 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek is midnight black with nothing but a Glock 19 pictured and the words "The Killing Machine" in white boldly superimposed over the gun. The article summary states "America's Gun - How Glock became the weapon of choice for U.S. cops, gun enthusiasts, and mass killers/psychopaths like alleged Tucson gunman Jared Loughner."

A recent article in Politico outlines the draconian terms of congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy's recently-announced magazine ban bill. (The bill will be formally introduced on January 18th.) According to Politico, the new law would not just permanently ban the import or manufacture of 11+ round magazines, but it would also outlaw their sale or transfer--even those that are obtained before the law takes effect. This flies in the face of a heretofore fairly uniform feature of American jurisprudence: the grandfather clause. This will set the bill up for an almost certain court challenge. Leaving dealers and private citizens holding millions of un-sellable magazines in effect constitutes a "legislative taking" that is wicked and despicable. (With the exception of drug bans, grandfather clauses are considered standard practice in the U.S. for laws restricting everything from R-12 Freon to pre-building code houses, to live cheetahs to machineguns to elephant ivory.) Could you imagine a law that said that it would be illegal to pass down to your grandchildren a family heirloom piano, just because it had ivory keys? That is effectively what Rep. McCarthy has proposed, for what she calls "high capacity" magazines! (OBTW, they are more accurately called "full capacity" or "standard capacity.")

Last week, Delaware Senator Ted Kaufman said: "We should all agree there's no earthly reason to have a 30-shot magazine." Well, Senator Kaufman, I'd like you to come huckleberry picking with me, out here in grizzly bear country. Or go walk a patrol with some American infantrymen in Afghanistan or for that matter with the Guardian Angels in Dallas, Texas. Then you will indeed see an earthly reason to have a 30-shot magazine! Meanwhile, veteran gun grabber Senator Frank Lautenberg was recently quoted as saying: “The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly.” How about stopping a charging bear? Or stopping a charging meth addict? These legislators are out of touch with reality. Please contact your Senators, and insist that they kill any new "gun control" legislation before it ever makes it out of committee.

A magazine ban would limit us to neutered 10-round (reduced capacity) magazines. So what am I supposed to say to a charging brown bear or grizzly bear? "Time out! Wait, while I reload."

The ban is being drafted by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who is absolutely clueless about firearms terminology. (She thinks that a barrel shroud is a "shoulder thing that goes up"). In an interview with NPR, Rep. McCarthy said: "We're not dealing about guns here. We're dealing about a piece of equipment that goes to the gun. I think when you think about just common sense here, large capacity clips that can basically, in my opinion, be weapons of mass destruction, should not be available to the average citizen. They will be available to our military. They will be available to our police officers." Oh I see, only "trained professionals" should have access to them. We, the lowly peons should not be entrusted with coercive force.

As an aside, hearing the ignorant nabobs in congress and the mainstream media talking about banning "clips" that can hold more than 10 "bullets" makes me cringe. I find this akin to hearing George W. Bush mispronouncing the word nuclear as "nuke-you-lur", or hearing Congressman Hank Johnson pontificating on the risk of a "capsize" of the island of Guam because of overpopulation.

These politicians seem very intent on "closing loopholes" and enacting what they call "reasonable" "reforms" (read: restrictions) on our rights. What is really going on is that the legislators want to deprive the citizenry of effective modern arms, but retain them for The Powers That Be. Also beware that there are legislative threats at the state level. For example, read this: Reactionary Gun Laws Being Proposed in South Carolina After Tucson, Arizona Shooting. Be vigilant. Contact you legislators frequently, or our liberty may slip away.

Just in case a magazine ban becomes law, I recommend that you immediately stock up on your lifetime supply of full capacity magazines! Also, be prepared to legally transfer, by means of a dated document, the majority of your magazines to your children and grandchildren, before any new ban is signed into law. Do an inventory all of your 11+ round magazines, and make detailed lists in separate "Completed Transfer of Magazine Ownership" documents for each child. Have each witnessed by two adults who are not members of your family, and then have the documents notarized. Unless your children have this equivalent of a Bill of Sale, they won't be able to prove that they legally owned their magazines before the bill becomes law.

Again, please regularly contact your congressmen and senators, and express your concern about this issue.

by Bunnyfluffer; If they ban them for civilians they need to ban them for Police as well. Why on Earth do police have a need for a firearm that can shoot hundreds of rounds per minute if not to kill people. So is this congress women supporting police killing people?

Rep. McCarthy's Magazine Ban--Worse Than First Imagined


Here is some moron more on Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy's recently-introduced magazine ban legislation. I studied the bill's wording and I learned:

* The bill defines large capacity ammunition feeding devices as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition” (This is nearly the same as the now defunct 1994 law, but it does not exempt tubular or otherwise non-detachable magazines.)

* For Post-Enactment Devices: Prohibits the transfer, possession, or import of a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of enactment of the bill .

* For Pre-Enactment Devices: Prohibits the transfer or import (but not possession) of large capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured before the date of enactment of the bill. This is a huge difference from the 1994 ban, which allowed the transfer of any "pre-ban" magazines or belts, under a grandfather clause.

* As Sebastian at the Snowflakes in H*ll blog pointed out, the ban includes any magazine that holds more than 10 cartridges, even if it is a fixed tubular magazine. (The only exception is for .22 rimfire.) So this effectively bans transfers of even pre-1898 antique Henry, Model 1866, Model 1873, and Model 1892 Winchester rifles (and replicas) with long magazines! Ditto for Colt Lightning rifles and many other pump and lever-action guns. And ditto for Astra Broomhandle Mauser pistols with integral 12 or 20 round magazines. All these guns would be "frozen" from any transfer until the death of their owner, whereupon the guns would become contraband.

* It also includes fixed tubular magazines on shotguns. It is noteworthy that many shotguns with ostensibly "7 round" or "8 round" tubular magazines actually have 12+ round magazines if you use the stubby Mini 12 gauge shells. (And remember, it will be the notorious "shoelace squad" BATFE that will be enforcing the law, so any guesses on how they will define the magazine capacity of your shotgun?)

* It includes belts and links as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". It also requires that any magazines or links produced after the ban goes into effect must have a serial number marked. (Yes, marked on each magazine, belt, and link.) For disintegrating belt links (those ubiquitous little black steel tabs) this would create a manufacturing nightmare for military contractors! Could you imagine stamping or engraving a unique serial number on each of the hundreds of millions of links that are produced each year? How would you fit that many digits on the curved surface of a 3/4-inch long 5.56mm M249 SAW link? Micro-stamping, perhaps?

* Unlike the 1994-to-2004 Federal ban, there is no 10-year "sunset" clause. This law will be permanent!

* The term "Transfer" is not adequately defined. Let's say you were to allow someone in your family or a friend shoot your rifle or pistol with an 11+ round magazine. Then that could be construed as a felony "transfer", even if you are present during the target shooting session.

* The absurdity of this bill can best be seen when you consider that it will also control the magazines, belts, and links used for registered Class 3 full-auto guns. Who would ever want to buy a $7,000+ registered machinegun if the only magazines and belts available for purchase are limited to 10 round capacity? (The guns themselves could still be transferred with a $200 Federal tax, but the magazines, and belts could only be transferred if they held 10 rounds or less. And to be legal, any belts assembled from links after the bill is enacted would be limited to 10-round length. That is absolutely ludicrous.)

* The "transfer" portion of this law opens up innumerable opportunities for inadvertent law-breaking. What about a soldier who accidentally brings home an M16 magazine in his TA-50 dufflebag? What about someone who bids on buying the entire contents of a storage space with a lapsed contract? If they bring home a box that includes just one 11+ round magazine, then they will have committed a felony with huge fines and a possible 10 year prison sentence.

* There is no exception in the law for magazines belonging to retiring servicemen or peace officers.

* There is no exception in the law for sales of replacement parts to keep magazines in repair. So if a magazine gets dented or breaks, then it becomes permanently useless.

* Most importantly: There is no exception in the law for passing down magazines, belts, or links within a family, as gifts or bequests. Once you die, then your 11+ round magazines will become contraband, and any subsequent possessor could be charged with a felony. Your heirs might as well tuck your magazines in your casket.

Please contact your congresscritters and insist that this ill-conceived bill be vigorously opposed!

James W. Rawles

...Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination.

William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as "an arsenal."

As I found researching my new book, Gunfight, in 1956, after King's house was bombed, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama. The local police had discretion to determine who was a suitable person to carry firearms. King, a clergyman whose life was threatened daily, surely met the requirements of the law, but he was rejected nevertheless. At the time, the police used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans.

Ironically, the concealed carry permit law in Alabama was promoted by the National Rifle Association thirty years earlier. Today, the gun rights hardliners fight to eliminate permits for concealed carry, as Arizona has done....

Martin Luther King Jr. and Guns.

quote:
...Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination.

William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as "an arsenal."

As I found researching my new book, Gunfight, in 1956, after King's house was bombed, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama. The local police had discretion to determine who was a suitable person to carry firearms. King, a clergyman whose life was threatened daily, surely met the requirements of the law, but he was rejected nevertheless. At the time, the police used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans.

Ironically, the concealed carry permit law in Alabama was promoted by the National Rifle Association thirty years earlier. Today, the gun rights hardliners fight to eliminate permits for concealed carry, as Arizona has done....
It's good to remember that gun control legislation has its roots in racism.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Originally posted by J. Croft:

I'd be a bit more worried about the ammunition....

...in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.”

The White House said that to avoid being accused of capitalizing on the Arizona shootings for political gain, Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month. He’s also expected to use Arizona as a starting point, but make the case that America’s gun laws have been too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks....

"Over" or "On"? A question for politicians of the citizen disarmament persuasion.

As the next firearm, magazine and ammunition stockpiling frenzy begins, heralded by the announced drive for another AWB, here's a question:

Are people spending their hard-earned money in the middle of a semi-depression on extended magazines and semi-auto weapons of military utility just to turn them OVER to politicians after they ban them, or to turn them ON said politicians after they ban them?

William Jennings Bryan, my Lebanese-born, fully-Americanized Econ 101 professor at Franklin University in Columbus, Ohio, taught me that except in decisions involving love or sex that all economic transactions are rational.

Puzzle the rationality of that question --- turn them over, or turn them on?

The Clintonistas were frightened by the millions of rifles that were purchased in anticipation of the first AWB. The Obamanoids should be too.

Originally posted by Correus:
[quote] ]http://www.atf.gov/publications/fire...n-shotguns.pdf[/quote]

Link wouldn't work for me.