Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

New Gun Control Legislation Begins with Assault Weapons Ban and High-Capacity Magazine Ban Proposals

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

The Gun Shots Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

The Gun Shots
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

January 04, 2013
New Gun Control Legislation Begins with Assault Weapons Ban and High-Capacity Magazine Ban Proposals - 23

Moments after being sworn in Thursday as members of the newly minted 113th Congress, Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) staged a press conference to formally introduce their proposed High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, setting the stage for what could be a stormy winter of legislative initiatives by gun-control proponents.
   
The hi-cap mag ban legislation, originally introduced by McCarthy in 2011, had 138 co-sponsors in the 112th Congress but stagnated in the Republican-controlled House.
   
The proposed bill would ban the sale or transfer of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This was the federal mandate between 1994 and 2004 under the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
   
Of course, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) -- among the authors of the expired 1994-2004 AWB -- was also expected by week's end to introduce her new version of the expired AWB, which the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action claims would "adopt new definitions of 'assault weapon' that would affect a much larger variety of firearms," require owners of "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners.
   
According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the proposed ban would:

• Expand the definition of “assault weapon” to include any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for tubular-magazine .22s; any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches; any semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel. Under these definitions, popular rifles such as the M1 Carbine, a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS would be banned.

• Require owners of firearms defined as “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

• Reduce, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms.

• Adopt new lists of prohibited external features.

• Prohibit the transfer of “assault weapons.”

• Prohibit the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
   
While gun control legislation was expected in the wake of the Dec. 14 Newtown school shootings, a number of polls indicate Americans aren't as enthusiastic about imposing more gun bans.
   
A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Dec. 19-22 found 58 percent of Americans favor strengthening firearms sales laws, up from 43 percent in October 2011. But those who support a new AWB have changed little -- 44 percent favor banning "assault weapons." That's up just 2 percent since 2011.
   
Gallup indicates that 62 percent of Americans do favor banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and 92 percent, up from 83 percent in 1999, favor laws that require people attempting to purchase guns at gun shows, including gun dealers, to undergo background checks.
   
For  more, go to:
-- Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans
   
-- Gun policy: On day one, Diana DeGette introduces high-capacity magazine ban
   
-- House Dems introduce new gun control bill
   
-- NO TIME WASTED: DEMS PLAN TO INTRODUCE HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINE BAN ON FIRST DAY OF CONGRESSIONAL SESSION
   
-- Guns, immigration, fiscal issues emerge as top priorities for Obama, new Congress
   
-- Dodging the bullets of gun legislation
   
-- Rosen: Anti-gun hysteria is no solution
   
-- The Strangest Conservative Priority: Prepping a '2nd Amendment Solution'
   
-- 10 Reasons Stricter Gun Regulation Will Be Difficult to Achieve in America

Comments (23)

Top Rated
All Comments
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

CCMJS,
The other end of the spectrum (devil's advocate) is: Why is not a 10 shot magazine/clip enough? How many shots do you want 20, 100, 500? You're right the second amendment is about being able to protect ourselves, not about hunting and fishing. This is a hunting and fishing website, so we usually think from that perspective first. If this is really about protection why worry about another 6 to 10 shots? Why not lobby for automatic weapons, gernade launchers, missiles, etc...Why worry about another 6 to 10 shots. Go big, those are small potatoes. I am playing the devil's advocate, as I have stated below this only effects me from the prospect of a slippery slope. I vote, am a member of the NRA, write and make phone calls to protect against the slippery slope, because another 6 to 10 rounds in a couple of seconds doesn't effect my outdoor life. However, if they start taking they might not quit, that's why I put my time into this. There wasn't much of a slippery slope with the 1994 ban, but we can't take chances and I will not chance my families future in the outdoors. I might not think the same as you, however we are on the same side.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CCMJS wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

If we are going to give up some mag capacity why not give all? Is gun ownership about hunting and sport shooting? Single shot rifles could replace our bolt action(sniper)rifles and carbines. Double barrelled shotguns could replace pumps and seni-autos. We could justify this by calling ourselves "TRUE SPORTSMEN". Then we wouldn't have to worry about losing these until someone saws off a shotgun and shoots someone. Its all about 'safety'.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Mike Janoska,
I do not always agree with schmakenzie's opinions, but I can assure you, he is not "... a troll, not a lover of liberty." Your unwarranted personal attacks do not contribute anything to this conversation, and reveal that you, in fact, are the one who cannot back up his arguments with the facts.
And since you criticized me for saying that magazine limits wouldn't be a huge burden for most hunters and shooters, I would ask you this, specifically how would it hurt your enjoyment of the shooting sports?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ray Wade wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

So they out law 30 round clips. Just tape two ten round clips to the bottom of one ten round clip. Problem solved.
I'll just keep my 30 round clips than you. That gives me 90 rounds. Leave out three to take care of jamming.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CCMJS wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Imagine if we all lived 200 years ago. Many on this site would be lobbying Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Henry, telling them that King George is not so bad. That life would be better if we just gave him what he wanted.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Victor Rossi wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Get Ready

Hike up your boots fellas cause the fit is about to hit the shan. Too much of La Pierre's BS has turned too many people against the ownership of assault-type, kiddie killer weapons to affect any positive changes. So get ready for assorted bans, high permit fees, and eventually VOLUNTARY relinquishment of ownership. Cluck, cluck, the chickens are about to come back to roost. Grin and bare it, literally.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm. Magazines may be integral to the firearm (fixed) or removable (detachable). The magazine functions by moving the cartridges stored in the magazine into a position where they may be loaded into the chamber by the action of the firearm. The detachable magazine is often controversially referred to as a CLIP. You're right the American military is no match for the AR-15, really? We have gun regulation now and it's been around for decades. There are currently firearms that are illegal. Some of us have the opinion on here that a magazine/clip limit is not a life changer for most of us that hunt. Can I have that opinion? Yes. Do I want less of a clip/magazine limit? No.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Janoska wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Schmakenzie,
An AR15 would do more than you think. I was right you don't know your history otherwise you would know how North Vietnam kicked the USA's ass with a far inferior weapon the SKS, Mausser, and eventually the auto AK. I suggest you research the Patriot Post, the Oath keepers, or perhaps read Paul Howe over at the Wilson fire arm web site. I'm also a member of the NRA and I pray to God that the majority of it's members think like me and not you. If you check out provox. Org congressional web site 83% of the people who went their opposed more gun control and only 17% supported it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Janoska wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Schmakenzie
Sir, you do not even know the correct terms, it's not a clip it is a magazine. I live in a gun neutered state, Ca. And can tell you that the Democrat liberals here are not happy with how they have already watered down my rights. I can no longer intelligently debate someone I believe to be disingenuous. You sir can not profess that you are a gun user when you do not even know the proper terminology. Sir I believe you to be a troll, not a lover of liberty. This conversation is over on my part. In conclusion I will state that I believe that 2.8 million firearms where sold in the last couple of weeks, and more firearms where sold last year than years previous because many US citizens don't trust their government , not because they intend to give in! I will leave you with this though Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws around and yet more violent gun related deaths per capita than the USA gun laws are not the solution.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

"You lead me to believe that you do not know your history, as in the last century Armeniens, laotians, Jews, Russians , and many more societies had their fire arms privileges suspended and 51 million people where killed by their own Governments." Do you really feel with the regulations that are currently in place that we would stand a chance against our government? Seriously, aircraft carriers, tanks, rockets, subs, fighter pilots, etc... What would an Ar-15 do against that?

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Mr. Janoska, I vote, I am a member of the NRA and I make phone calls. I am educated and understand history. I would love nothing more than to go on with our current regulations. It's not going to remain as it once was. Change is coming to guns and we all know it. Why is everyone sold out of .223's? Why are there more background checks than ever before? Why is everyone buying clips? It's because society can feel the shift. There will be concessions made, our point is we would hope a 10 shot clip is something that would pacify the anti-gun crowd. Is going from a 16 round clip, to 10 round clips going to hurt the outdoor industry? Probably not. Did the 1994 ban take away your pump shotgun? No, not even close. It's going to be a give an take battle with guns from here on out. I wish we could win every battle, but I am going to be realistic.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Janoska wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

SchmakenzIe,
It is very clear to me that you do not get it, and that is what terrifies me. You stand with so many people who feel that millions of gun owners should be penalized for the actions of .0000001% of the crazies out there. You lead me to believe that you do not know your history, as in the last century Armeniens, laotians, Jews, Russians , and many more societies had their fire arms privileges suspended and 51 million people where killed by their own Governments. The second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or target shooting! if people want somebody dead all the laws on Earth will not stop them. A Firearm, bullet, magazine etc... Is an inaniment object with no malice. The largest death total and school tragedy in the USA was in Michigan in 1927 killing over 40 students, the method was an explosive made from Diesel Fuel, Fertilizer ......... Those items where not made illegal. The Government killed more children at WACO then the lunatic in Newtown. This is a complex societal problem, and it's been my experience that when someone give an over simplified solution to a complex problem their not trying to solve the problem but push an agenda. If you were to read the current proposed Fienstien Bill you would see it's much more than bullet capacity the Government is going after.
People who do not understand History are destined to repeat it!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Mr. Janoska, I think we understand the slippery slope. I am an avid hunter as stated below. Should we be able to own hand gernades and rocket launchers? We all agree probably not. Do we need clips for 20 rounds, 100 rounds or 500? We have to set limits, don't we? I don't like to be told what I can and can not own when it comes to guns, however I think huntfishtrap probably has it right.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Janoska wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Right now they're going after "Assault Weapons" / semi autos that hold more than 10 rounds and many of my fellow sportsman are prepared to give up or throw us under the bus because "you" don't see a need for that many bullets. Wow really, what are you all going to do when they get what they want and next time they want to attack "Sniper Rifles" ummm I mean dear rifles with high powered scopes? It amazes me how many of my fellow hunters clearly do not understand the 2A or the words "shall not infringe". I am an avid shooter and hunter and clearly understand the importance of what's going on and the lefts Agenda, why can't most of you.
Shame on you

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg Unruh wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

The problem I see, is that these idiots all claim insanity or mental problems to get off easy when they get nabbed. Course! Anyone that goes off hunting for their fellow humans in their own neighborhoods will have the devil's legions whispering in their heads! Let's 'train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he won't depart from it'.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Riley Townsend wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Please Read the 2nd amendment and see for yourself that it doesn't have any references to hunting in it. Before you compromise us out of our rights, see what the founders intent was. The AR type rifles wouldn't exactly put us on the same footing as true assault weapons the military uses. The founders fielded flintlock weapons comparable to the British. The militia of the 2nd amendment was every able bodied man. Probably, as today, every WILLING able bodied man. He that has ears let him hear.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ezrvs1 wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Yesterday a psychiatric patient in Switzerland shot up a town and killed three. A psychiatric patient in Connecticut shot and killed 27. A mentally disturbed person in Colorado gunned down 12 in a theater. In Arizona a mentally disturbed man killed six with a gun at a politcal rally. Last summer a white supremacist killed 7 at a Sikh temple...Do you not see a pattern? The pattern to which I refer is mentally ill young men. Our problem is not guns it's the mentally disturbed who are roaming our communities without supervision or restraint. Just before the Connecticut shooting our Congress voted to eliminate the word 'lunatic' from all legislation. What absurd, politically correct nonsense. If we cannot even use the term how are we ever going to solve the problem?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Groffeaston wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

No matter what limits they put on magazine capacity, there will always be idiots and crazies who will want to go out and harm others at any cost! Even with an "Assault Weapons" Ban in place, 2 heavily armored men went into a bank in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles on February 28, 1997 and robbed the bank and then proceeded to have a shoot out with police. They were armed with illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. So How did Banning "Assault Weapons" Stop those 2 from shooting up LA? It didn't!! SO how will: banning "Assault Weapons" and limiting magazine Capacity, if a criminal illegally obtains these types of weapons and is "hell bent on destruction"?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from LovesOutdoors wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

For years, the assault weapons and large capicity magazines have been on the front news, taking major hits and blame from the media and the politicians. Sportsmen, Don't be so fast to throw them under the bus because you don't have any. Once their ban nationwide, the masses may go after your handguns next.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I am on the record here as saying I believe we should entertain the idea of magazine limits, not because I think it would have a big impact on crime, but simply because I think the gun-rights community needs to give the other side some of what they want, to prevent public opinion shifting even more heavily against legal gun ownership. And I believe magazine limits wouldn't be that big of a burden for the vast majority of hunters and recreational shooters.
This revised assault weapons ban would be a dangerous step in the wrong direction however, IMO.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocktop wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I think it is strange how the same people who want to ban guns to save defenseless children from being killed are the same people who are unwilling to bane late term abortions

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I use guns more than the average person, mainly for hunting. Guns are a tool for me to hunt with, I don't collect them or engage in any ranges (We sight in close to where we hunt, right or wrong it's free). By accident I don't own any semi-automatic or pump guns at this point in my life. I have bolt actions and over and unders. Call me a coward, but if I did own certain semi-automatics cuurently I would sell them. I would not the paperwork or the risk of a felony for owning a certain gun or magazine.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

As voters we are responsible for letting our representatives in Congress know how we feel about these issues now and when legislation is being considered. It will be an important year.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from ezrvs1 wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Yesterday a psychiatric patient in Switzerland shot up a town and killed three. A psychiatric patient in Connecticut shot and killed 27. A mentally disturbed person in Colorado gunned down 12 in a theater. In Arizona a mentally disturbed man killed six with a gun at a politcal rally. Last summer a white supremacist killed 7 at a Sikh temple...Do you not see a pattern? The pattern to which I refer is mentally ill young men. Our problem is not guns it's the mentally disturbed who are roaming our communities without supervision or restraint. Just before the Connecticut shooting our Congress voted to eliminate the word 'lunatic' from all legislation. What absurd, politically correct nonsense. If we cannot even use the term how are we ever going to solve the problem?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from LovesOutdoors wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

For years, the assault weapons and large capicity magazines have been on the front news, taking major hits and blame from the media and the politicians. Sportsmen, Don't be so fast to throw them under the bus because you don't have any. Once their ban nationwide, the masses may go after your handguns next.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Janoska wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Right now they're going after "Assault Weapons" / semi autos that hold more than 10 rounds and many of my fellow sportsman are prepared to give up or throw us under the bus because "you" don't see a need for that many bullets. Wow really, what are you all going to do when they get what they want and next time they want to attack "Sniper Rifles" ummm I mean dear rifles with high powered scopes? It amazes me how many of my fellow hunters clearly do not understand the 2A or the words "shall not infringe". I am an avid shooter and hunter and clearly understand the importance of what's going on and the lefts Agenda, why can't most of you.
Shame on you

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Janoska wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

SchmakenzIe,
It is very clear to me that you do not get it, and that is what terrifies me. You stand with so many people who feel that millions of gun owners should be penalized for the actions of .0000001% of the crazies out there. You lead me to believe that you do not know your history, as in the last century Armeniens, laotians, Jews, Russians , and many more societies had their fire arms privileges suspended and 51 million people where killed by their own Governments. The second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or target shooting! if people want somebody dead all the laws on Earth will not stop them. A Firearm, bullet, magazine etc... Is an inaniment object with no malice. The largest death total and school tragedy in the USA was in Michigan in 1927 killing over 40 students, the method was an explosive made from Diesel Fuel, Fertilizer ......... Those items where not made illegal. The Government killed more children at WACO then the lunatic in Newtown. This is a complex societal problem, and it's been my experience that when someone give an over simplified solution to a complex problem their not trying to solve the problem but push an agenda. If you were to read the current proposed Fienstien Bill you would see it's much more than bullet capacity the Government is going after.
People who do not understand History are destined to repeat it!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CCMJS wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Imagine if we all lived 200 years ago. Many on this site would be lobbying Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Henry, telling them that King George is not so bad. That life would be better if we just gave him what he wanted.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

As voters we are responsible for letting our representatives in Congress know how we feel about these issues now and when legislation is being considered. It will be an important year.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Groffeaston wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

No matter what limits they put on magazine capacity, there will always be idiots and crazies who will want to go out and harm others at any cost! Even with an "Assault Weapons" Ban in place, 2 heavily armored men went into a bank in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles on February 28, 1997 and robbed the bank and then proceeded to have a shoot out with police. They were armed with illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. So How did Banning "Assault Weapons" Stop those 2 from shooting up LA? It didn't!! SO how will: banning "Assault Weapons" and limiting magazine Capacity, if a criminal illegally obtains these types of weapons and is "hell bent on destruction"?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Mike Janoska,
I do not always agree with schmakenzie's opinions, but I can assure you, he is not "... a troll, not a lover of liberty." Your unwarranted personal attacks do not contribute anything to this conversation, and reveal that you, in fact, are the one who cannot back up his arguments with the facts.
And since you criticized me for saying that magazine limits wouldn't be a huge burden for most hunters and shooters, I would ask you this, specifically how would it hurt your enjoyment of the shooting sports?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rocktop wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I think it is strange how the same people who want to ban guns to save defenseless children from being killed are the same people who are unwilling to bane late term abortions

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Riley Townsend wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Please Read the 2nd amendment and see for yourself that it doesn't have any references to hunting in it. Before you compromise us out of our rights, see what the founders intent was. The AR type rifles wouldn't exactly put us on the same footing as true assault weapons the military uses. The founders fielded flintlock weapons comparable to the British. The militia of the 2nd amendment was every able bodied man. Probably, as today, every WILLING able bodied man. He that has ears let him hear.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greg Unruh wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

The problem I see, is that these idiots all claim insanity or mental problems to get off easy when they get nabbed. Course! Anyone that goes off hunting for their fellow humans in their own neighborhoods will have the devil's legions whispering in their heads! Let's 'train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he won't depart from it'.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Janoska wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Schmakenzie
Sir, you do not even know the correct terms, it's not a clip it is a magazine. I live in a gun neutered state, Ca. And can tell you that the Democrat liberals here are not happy with how they have already watered down my rights. I can no longer intelligently debate someone I believe to be disingenuous. You sir can not profess that you are a gun user when you do not even know the proper terminology. Sir I believe you to be a troll, not a lover of liberty. This conversation is over on my part. In conclusion I will state that I believe that 2.8 million firearms where sold in the last couple of weeks, and more firearms where sold last year than years previous because many US citizens don't trust their government , not because they intend to give in! I will leave you with this though Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws around and yet more violent gun related deaths per capita than the USA gun laws are not the solution.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Janoska wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Schmakenzie,
An AR15 would do more than you think. I was right you don't know your history otherwise you would know how North Vietnam kicked the USA's ass with a far inferior weapon the SKS, Mausser, and eventually the auto AK. I suggest you research the Patriot Post, the Oath keepers, or perhaps read Paul Howe over at the Wilson fire arm web site. I'm also a member of the NRA and I pray to God that the majority of it's members think like me and not you. If you check out provox. Org congressional web site 83% of the people who went their opposed more gun control and only 17% supported it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CCMJS wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

If we are going to give up some mag capacity why not give all? Is gun ownership about hunting and sport shooting? Single shot rifles could replace our bolt action(sniper)rifles and carbines. Double barrelled shotguns could replace pumps and seni-autos. We could justify this by calling ourselves "TRUE SPORTSMEN". Then we wouldn't have to worry about losing these until someone saws off a shotgun and shoots someone. Its all about 'safety'.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I am on the record here as saying I believe we should entertain the idea of magazine limits, not because I think it would have a big impact on crime, but simply because I think the gun-rights community needs to give the other side some of what they want, to prevent public opinion shifting even more heavily against legal gun ownership. And I believe magazine limits wouldn't be that big of a burden for the vast majority of hunters and recreational shooters.
This revised assault weapons ban would be a dangerous step in the wrong direction however, IMO.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Mr. Janoska, I vote, I am a member of the NRA and I make phone calls. I am educated and understand history. I would love nothing more than to go on with our current regulations. It's not going to remain as it once was. Change is coming to guns and we all know it. Why is everyone sold out of .223's? Why are there more background checks than ever before? Why is everyone buying clips? It's because society can feel the shift. There will be concessions made, our point is we would hope a 10 shot clip is something that would pacify the anti-gun crowd. Is going from a 16 round clip, to 10 round clips going to hurt the outdoor industry? Probably not. Did the 1994 ban take away your pump shotgun? No, not even close. It's going to be a give an take battle with guns from here on out. I wish we could win every battle, but I am going to be realistic.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm. Magazines may be integral to the firearm (fixed) or removable (detachable). The magazine functions by moving the cartridges stored in the magazine into a position where they may be loaded into the chamber by the action of the firearm. The detachable magazine is often controversially referred to as a CLIP. You're right the American military is no match for the AR-15, really? We have gun regulation now and it's been around for decades. There are currently firearms that are illegal. Some of us have the opinion on here that a magazine/clip limit is not a life changer for most of us that hunt. Can I have that opinion? Yes. Do I want less of a clip/magazine limit? No.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ray Wade wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

So they out law 30 round clips. Just tape two ten round clips to the bottom of one ten round clip. Problem solved.
I'll just keep my 30 round clips than you. That gives me 90 rounds. Leave out three to take care of jamming.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

CCMJS,
The other end of the spectrum (devil's advocate) is: Why is not a 10 shot magazine/clip enough? How many shots do you want 20, 100, 500? You're right the second amendment is about being able to protect ourselves, not about hunting and fishing. This is a hunting and fishing website, so we usually think from that perspective first. If this is really about protection why worry about another 6 to 10 shots? Why not lobby for automatic weapons, gernade launchers, missiles, etc...Why worry about another 6 to 10 shots. Go big, those are small potatoes. I am playing the devil's advocate, as I have stated below this only effects me from the prospect of a slippery slope. I vote, am a member of the NRA, write and make phone calls to protect against the slippery slope, because another 6 to 10 rounds in a couple of seconds doesn't effect my outdoor life. However, if they start taking they might not quit, that's why I put my time into this. There wasn't much of a slippery slope with the 1994 ban, but we can't take chances and I will not chance my families future in the outdoors. I might not think the same as you, however we are on the same side.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

"You lead me to believe that you do not know your history, as in the last century Armeniens, laotians, Jews, Russians , and many more societies had their fire arms privileges suspended and 51 million people where killed by their own Governments." Do you really feel with the regulations that are currently in place that we would stand a chance against our government? Seriously, aircraft carriers, tanks, rockets, subs, fighter pilots, etc... What would an Ar-15 do against that?

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Mr. Janoska, I think we understand the slippery slope. I am an avid hunter as stated below. Should we be able to own hand gernades and rocket launchers? We all agree probably not. Do we need clips for 20 rounds, 100 rounds or 500? We have to set limits, don't we? I don't like to be told what I can and can not own when it comes to guns, however I think huntfishtrap probably has it right.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

I use guns more than the average person, mainly for hunting. Guns are a tool for me to hunt with, I don't collect them or engage in any ranges (We sight in close to where we hunt, right or wrong it's free). By accident I don't own any semi-automatic or pump guns at this point in my life. I have bolt actions and over and unders. Call me a coward, but if I did own certain semi-automatics cuurently I would sell them. I would not the paperwork or the risk of a felony for owning a certain gun or magazine.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Victor Rossi wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Get Ready

Hike up your boots fellas cause the fit is about to hit the shan. Too much of La Pierre's BS has turned too many people against the ownership of assault-type, kiddie killer weapons to affect any positive changes. So get ready for assorted bans, high permit fees, and eventually VOLUNTARY relinquishment of ownership. Cluck, cluck, the chickens are about to come back to roost. Grin and bare it, literally.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)