If its semi-auto and you can GRIP it, it's banned!!!

reply to post by Daedalus

coool, thanks ... these ones ??
world.guns.ru...

if so, very interesting ... i have never seen a handgun like that before.
soooo, i wonder - these seem very WWI ish, are there similar units still in production ?
or, what term can i 'search' to find out ?

reply to post by Honor93


The 'Broomhandle' Mauser seems to fall into the category, as it was manufactured with a stripper clip loaded magazine of both more and less than 10 round capacity.

Slightly older design than the Colt 1911, but not largely popular today (unlike the 1911) for obvious reasons of concealability and difficulty of reloading.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Daedalus

 

coool, thanks ... these ones ??
world.guns.ru...

if so, very interesting ... i have never seen a handgun like that before.
soooo, i wonder - these seem very WWI ish, are there similar units still in production ?
or, what term can i 'search' to find out ?

probably not still in production today, i know they were still in use during WWII. Oh, and as a cool side note, Han Solo used one in Star Wars. the Blas-Tech DL-44 he carried was a dressed up Mauser C-96

I doubt that the bill bans semi auto rifles and shotguns that have a pistol grip and a tubular magazine....but I dont doubt the intent of the gun banners to go all in if they could get their way (a la Mrs Feinstein's own words in 1995; a major city Police Chief stating that all the guns can be "off the streets" but it will take a generation; and, of course, the UN Agenda started by our own State Dept in Pub 7727). They cant come for them all at once or the public resistance and political backlash would be too great....but they can take a bite here and there until there is nothing left but flintlocks and regrets....No they are not coming for everything "lock, stock and barrel"....just the stock and barrel (as long as it is not a pistol grip "stock", that is).

reply to post by neo96



Not trying to belittle your post, but I have 2 pistols that have 8 or 9 round mags.
What are people with hi cap mags supposed to do with their guns, just throw them away? Turn them in for free?
"Bring us your $700 gun and we'll give you $200"

Or the gun manufactuers make millions more selling new low capacity mags.

reply to post by Honor93


Hi.. So couple questions.

1) can you link this directly? I'd like to find it myself.

‘‘(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or
coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored,
changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

2) This is not talking about handguns. It's talking about magazines. You can't have a high capacity feeding device, or anything that could be modded to a high capacity feeding device.. It doesn't say anything about a handguns readiness to accept a bigger mag, just that the mags you have have to be 10 or under, and not changeable "readily"...

What does readily mean?

Any way back to handguns..

This guy here is legal even if something as silly as this bill could pass:

Glock 27
Standard 9 round mag .40

Now could you mod that 9 round mag to accept 11 bullets readily? If someone could do that I guess it would be illegal..

Originally posted by whatsup86
What a surprise. This will be the second major victory for nwo and all we do is bitch about it on a forun.

I beg to differ, I have sent my letters to my Reps, to my senators, to the president & vice-president voicing my concerns, I have even put letter out to my state governor, and legislators. I am doing my part and will do more as it becomes necessary.

The question is what have you done? And don’t tell me it’s pointless to do such things… it’s people that don’t do anything that causes all the governmental problems, so pointless or not at least I trying to make a difference, I am fighting for our constitutional rights and common sense laws…

The bill contains specific exemptions for a large number of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns that are listed by name. It is a little concerning that she didn't have a section of specific exemptions for handguns.

Regardless, Feinstein's bill, at least in its current form, is circling the toilet bowl like the turd that it is. Patrick Leahy, the Democrat Senate Judiciary Chairman, basically rejected the thing earlier this week. It would have to go through his committee before reaching a full floor vote. That may still happen, but with that rejection, its a lot less likely.

It'a ok ATS fear not ! , if your like me , than i am sure you are better with a Bolt Action , if they want to create a bunch of snipers ! than so be it ! but when SHTF its going to be a bad day for the people that Rise against

reply to post by Helious

Originally posted by Helious
Actually, if "any of you" think that this would actually pass through congress, your delusional.

Dude, I am not American, nor do I own a gun, but if I had a penny for every time I hear an American say this (and be sorely disappointed later), I'd be set for life.

Not only this bill will pass, but it will pass, and later be modified to include any provisions that the government considers too dangerous to openly put on the bill, after people stopped looking. That's how they work.

This is as ridiculous as the other guy that said "the democrats won't vote for this because they would lose many seat in the Congress if they did so, in the next election cycle." I keep a close eye on the events, and I am frankly not sure if there will be another election cycle in USA.

reply to post by Shdak

Originally posted by Shdak
I beg to differ, I have sent my letters to my Reps, to my senators, to the president & vice-president voicing my concerns, I have even put letter out to my state governor, and legislators. I am doing my part and will do more as it becomes necessary.

The question is what have you done? And don’t tell me it’s pointless to do such things… it’s people that don’t do anything that causes all the governmental problems, so pointless or not at least I trying to make a difference, I am fighting for our constitutional rights and common sense laws…

If he won't, then I will. It is pointless to do such things. You are not doing anything. You are part of the problem. You're not making any difference, you're not even trying to make any difference. The only thing you are accomplishing is making you feel "good" about yourself. It is to give yourself an excuse to pat yourself on the back and tell your children "at least, I tried". Fact is, you did not.

The only thing you did was to send a letter to request someone to fight the battle for you. Someone, I might add, that fights for the enemy army. How effective do you believe that to be? "Hey, they're giving you tons of money and power to fight for them, but I wrote you a letter, so fight for me instead?"

reply to post by butcherguy

@ butcherguy - thanks again, i'm still looking and from what i see, please explain.

i'm not sure i understand the 'broomhandle' descriptor.
searching that term on the above website produces what's below.

from same link above

1.Modern Firearms - Mauser C-96
Mauser C-96 (Germany) Technically, the C-96 is a recoil operated, locked breech , ... "broomhandle" to all C-96s) and removable wooden shoulder stock/holster.

2.Modern Firearms - Type 80
Type 80 pistol was apparently inspired by the classic German Mauser C96 pistol, in its late ... versions, and its design is heavily based on the old "broomhandle".

so, does that mean all C96s are 'broomhandle' design ?
or, is that specific to the "locked breech" mechanism ??

from what i see, that appears to be next to impossible to properly (lawfully) 'conceal' on my little body

yeah, i've priced those Colts and sadly, they're a bit out of my league, currently.

*****************************************

@ Daedalus - still, thanks for sharing.
like i said, i hadn't seen one of those before and for me, Star Wars was 1978 (give or take a cpl yrs) and i sure wasn't focused on their 'weapons' ... at least not those ones

i was entralled with the light sabres
[i still want one of those, only fully functional]

*********************************

@ Dustytoad - howdy.
i think the best i can do is give you the page # cause i think the link goes sraight to the 1st page ... so, here's the link again and you'll find the excerpt on pg 11, top of the page.
the bill
yes, it is talking about magazines used in any SAW.
and yes, that includes pistols.

before ppl claim that it applies to a specific model of weapon, please go back to pg 2 - line 18 - entry (36) The term 'SAW' (semi-auto weapon) means any of the following ... blah, blah, blah.

the next revised section is (37) on pg 11.
(and if you notice, replacement sections 32, 33, 34, & 35 appear to be 'absent', so i'll have to go back and re-read Title 18 of the USC to determine what has remained unchanged)

yes, that glock would be permissable, so long as the mag cannot be modified to accept more than 10 rounds.
[if you are not a craftsperson, i am and i can assure you that it can be readily modified - dremel and a guage work wonders]

as for that particular model, it is too big for me and not likely something i would invest in, even if it was my only choice.

here is my current home defense piece ... it would be banned.
P111
i would love one of the anti-ppl to tell me why mine is sooooo much more dangerous that is should be banned.

**************************

@ CosmicCitizen - you can doubt it all you want, but you would be mistaken.

I doubt that the bill bans semi auto rifles and shotguns that have a pistol grip and a tubular magazine

well, they did permit these (found on pg 11, line 9 of the bill)

‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’.

so, i'd say you're kinda correct within extreme limits.

ETA - ppl who are reviewing this bill need to realize that it is NOT a stand alone piece of legislation ... it is a series of revisions to Title 18, section 921 to be exact.
those who are taking this at 'face value' are missing the rest of the picture.

reply to post by Shdak

any chance you'd care to share a 'form letter' for those of us too upset to properly construct one ??

If this bill actually passes, would it be considered treason? I had to wikipedia the meaning of treason, I knew it was being a traitor but I needed the full meaning. My line of thought on this is that Fienstien is directly undermining the people and constitution by trying to put this through. It's treason no? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

reply to post by Cylent773


No, it wouldn't. USA Constitution defines Treason as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." under Section III, Article III.

Nor could she be charged with sedition, although many members of ATS likely could, under Smith Act.

ETA -- because i have no interest in pointing out all the bad aspects of this nonsense ... let's get one thing straight ...

‘‘(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or
coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored,
changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

now, you can argue with me til the cows come home, but it won't change the above.
large capacity ammunition feeding device -- applies to any firearm that can utilize them.

edit on 1-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt

Exactly, anything that has the capability to accept a magazine of more than 10 rounds effectively becomes a nice paperweight to club baddies over the head with.....

reply to post by Honor93


The C96 got the name broomhandle simply because the grip is round in cross-section. They were made in fixed magazine models of 6, 10 and 20 round capacity. Later models were made with detachable magazines, and since there were 20 round magazines made for them, they would be banned. If you had a fixed magazine model of 20 round capacity, it would certainly be banned, but I believe that all C96's may fall under the ban, as the magazine forms a grip forward of the trigger.
The Chinese machine pistol Model 80 I fear, would be banned for capacity reason and the forward grip area.

It's obvious they don't know anything about guns, or gun parts and modifications and what certain things are for.

Why don't they just make a commitee of some sort, and have them vote whether a gun is legal to own or not by how "scary", or how "cool" it looks. Any gun that uses no wood used in the manufacturing = banned LOL.

Most of these "scary" looking guns they seem to be targetting have the same firing ratre, and magazine capacity as your Dad's 30.06 hunting rifle. Hell the 30.06 may even be a more dangerous/lethal round than many of the guns they're trying to ban.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

ETA -- because i have no interest in pointing out all the bad aspects of this nonsense ... let's get one thing straight ...

‘‘(37) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’—
‘‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, including any such device joined or
coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored,
changed, or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

now, you can argue with me til the cows come home, but it won't change the above.
large capacity ammunition feeding device -- applies to any firearm that can utilize them.

edit on 1-2-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt

Exactly, anything that has the capability to accept a magazine of more than 10 rounds effectively becomes a nice paperweight to club baddies over the head with.....

There are magazines available for Colt 1911's that hold more than 10 rounds. They are unwieldy and have feeding problems.... but they are available.

Will the 1911 be banned?

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it or not; but there's an issue in the wording of magazine. Hand guns do not use a magazine...they use a clip. Magazines are used in rifles. It's interesting how many people up in arms about arms; have no idea or experience of what they are talking about.

When ignorance makes a decision there is no wisdom in it.

Originally posted by jibeho
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!! Most of all pay no attention to Feinstein's "specific" list of banned weapons. That list means absolutely nothing and is nothing more than a ruse.

I read this earlier this morning and just could not believe it. Thankfully someone is paying attention out their in cyber world because you probably have not heard this yet. If you have, please share your thoughts.

The article cited covers many extreme flaws in Feinstein's legislation. However, I am focusing on the worst of them.

All semi-autos are outlawed, not just some. Pro-rights and anti-rights attention has been focused on the tremendous list of guns that would be banned under Feinstein’s bill, which takes up a significant portion of the 122 pages of this proposal.

Here’s the problem none of the “news” reports have spotted:

The list of guns doesn’t matter.

Magazine size doesn’t matter.

If the semi-auto firearm has anything to grip it by, it is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)

It’s very clever actually.

According to the bill, any semiautomatic firearm that uses a magazine — handgun, rifle or shotgun — equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned. That sounds like a limitation, but it is not.

A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as “a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked!

Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned.

The list is meaningless tripe. It is camouflage for the real purpose of the bill. When the president said he is not going to take away your guns, well, Feinstein’s bill puts the lie to that.

Yes, that includes all semi auto pistols too!!!!

P.S. There is a section in Feinstein’s bill referring to “grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapons” illegal under federal law section 922(v). Someone should tell her lawyers that 922(v) expired eight years ago and is no longer valid, so that section makes no sense, doesn’t describe anything, and someone should slap those lawyers upside the head. It’s a small point.

Read more: dailycaller.com...


Please share this information with as many people as possible....

let me think about this one grip and shoot is illegal