Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Feinstein "Assault Weapons" Bill will BAN ALL HANDGUNS (ie, anything with a "pistol grip").

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I was going to post this on the thread regarding the Feinstein Bill will ban all semi-auto rifles; ie anything with a "grip" but I think the message deserves a separate thread. First,I dont think that one can construe a regular rifle or shotgun stock "grip" as a "pistol grip" and thus ban all stocks with grips per se. The language is not that broad. Pistol grips are used on assault rifles and shotguns supposedly for more control especially on true assault weapons (full auto) or with one hand (fool hardy). HOWEVER, that being said, the language of the Bill will BAN ALL HANDGUNS (Pistols) as they all have a "pistol grip" by definition. It is the Handgun that even Obama said (Presidential Debates) that was the more popular firearm used in crime (citing Chicago) not "AK-47s" (assault rifles). It is the handgun that the secret service worries most about when the president is meeting crowds (due to concealability; ie John Hinckley, Jr or Lynette "Squeaky" Fromm...luckily the former did not have the latter's gun {.45 instead of .22} or that the later was a bad shot) not a Lee Harvey Oswald with a bolt action rifle (staged assassination of JFK). This bill could be interpreted to ban all handguns including the collectable colt woodsman, the walther target pistol and even a .22 caliber derringer.
edit on 1-2-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)


EDIT: The actual language is for Pistol Grips and Detachable Magazines: So the Handguns that can be Banned under the Language are all Semi-Auto Handguns that have a magazine ("clip"). Revolvers would not be banned under the language of This particular Bill.
edit on 1-2-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
This is a very bad news
Gun ban is the worst thing that can ever happen.

How will US citizens protect themselves when Islamic terrorists like al-qaeda attack them?




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by shivaX
 

Good point: The government is saying that the islamo-terrorists are planning widespread shootings in the US and Europe and the police policy is that they are not here to protect us but to facilitate the prosecution of crime (ex post facto); ergo, citizens should be able to exercise their second amendment right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and to contribute to "the security of a free state" as best they are able.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by shivaX
This is a very bad news
Gun ban is the worst thing that can ever happen.

How will US citizens protect themselves when Islamic terrorists like al-qaeda attack them?



Scissors!



s your workplace getting shot up by a crazed gunman? No problem — just grab a pair of scissors and fight back!

Here
edit on 1-2-2013 by Yngvarr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Yngvarr
 

Maybe the DHS should cancel that order for 7000 Personal Defense Weapons (PDWs aka "Assault Weapons") and order 7000 select fire scissors instead.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


All this fear-mongering is getting old, to be honest.

A gun ban bill will never pass.

For starters, it would be political suicide for anyone dumb enough to vote for it.

Second, owning an assault rifle is already illegal unless you have a Class III license. This entire thing is non-sense.

Obama can spout all the rhetoric he wants to, just like he promised to bring all the troops home in his first year in office (back in '08).

Preparation is good, but preoccupation is bad.

Now, I will eat my words and be the first on the street if they ever do come for our guns...

But it isn't going to happen.
edit on 1-2-2013 by YouAreLiedTo because: Spelling...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Link?



The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
...
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine AND any 1 of the following:
(i) A threaded barrel.
(ii) A second pistol grip.
(iii) A barrel shroud.
(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip..


Unless all semi-automatic pistols have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine outside the pistol grip, I'm going to challenge you on this...

Text of Bill

Edited for clarity
edit on 2/1/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 

Yes true assault weapons (fully automatic or select fire), short barrel rifles and shotguns and so-called "destructive devices" are all Title II weapons of the National Firearms Act and require a Class III dealer to facilitate a transfer which also requires a thorough (up to 6 months) process of fbi background checks and a $200 transfer tax (which can be a total of $400 from the seller to the buyer) and only for weapons that were grandfathered not newly manufactured machine guns. etc (unless you have a manufactures SOT or a LEO letter).

While the 1994 Asssault Weapons Ban (AWB) backfired politically on the Democratic Party (mostly those in the House) Senator Feinstein and VP Biden are still actively pursuing this agenda. The President has threatened the use of Executive Orders also. No one in Congress has even challenged his elibigility to hold that office (side bar issue). FWIW, the first shot in the modern gun control era (since the Gun Control Act of 1968) was with GHW Bush's EO to ban the importation of "non-sporting" rifles (ie the H&K 90 series). That "non-sporting" rationale was applied by Clinton in a BATF directive to classify certain "assault styled" shotguns as "Destructive Devices" simultaneous with the AWB in 1994. The AWB was sunset after 10 years but to buy one of this shotguns you have to go thru a Class III dealer just like buying a machine gun. Gun Control usually comes in tiers: ie, assault styled semi-auto rifles then other semi autos as they have the same function anyway, then bolt actions as they are favored by snipers then handguns as they are easily concealable. There is an Agenda to Eliminate Firearms....some want to do it over a generation others want to do it by the stroke of a pen. Read State Dept Publication 7727....ultimately all theatre weapons of war will be under the control of the UN Peacekeeping Force; Nation States will only be allowed to keep firearms for the keeping of "local law and order"; "ALL OTHER WEAPONS WILL BE COLLECTED AND DESTROYED." This goes back over 50 years and is starting to accelerate along with the "progressive/socialist/communist" agenda. Paul Revere was a paranoid fear monger also.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Thank you for providing the link to the Bill. I was responding to the other thread that said all guns with "grips" will be banned. I "jumped the gun" and I apologize. SO....bottom line is that Handguns with a detachable magazine (all semi-automatic handguns not revolvers even tho "speed loaders" give them the same effect) are the ones that can be construed to be banned under the language. I do not trust Ms Feinstein (who has admitted that she would take all the guns from "Mr and Mrs America" if she had the votes....she didnt say "gangbangers" she said "Mr/Mrs America"). Another point however is the Agenda to Ban Firearms which is greater in scope than this bill. Read the State Dept Pub 7727 already mentioned and then take a look at a picture of the Gun Statue in front of the US; it is a "Revolver" (no detachable magazine) with a twisted barrel (inoperable) Not an an AK-57 or AR-15 ("assault styled" weapon).



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Don't worry about it. There isn't even Democrat support to pass the bill let alone the Republicans.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 



Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
SO....bottom line is that Handguns with a detachable magazine (all semi-automatic handguns not revolvers even tho "speed loaders" give them the same effect) are the ones that can be construed to be banned under the language.


No. You're still not getting it. Semi-automatic pistols with a magazine in the pistol grip are NOT banned. Please read the text carefully.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I am more concerned with Executive Orders quite frankly which seem to avoid constitutional challenges like congressional legislation is subjected to. Never fear I have a pair of Fiskars scissors.
edit on 1-2-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


So, you're going to change the subject and NOT edit your original post or title?

See? You guys complain SO MUCH about the MSM lying to further their agenda... I'm seeing more and more where the pro-gun crowd lies to further THEIRS...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I am more concerned with Executive Orders quite frankly which seem to avoid constitutional challenges like congressional legislation is subjected to. Never fear I have a pair of Fiskars scissors.
edit on 1-2-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)


That certainly wont happen. He would have done that already. He knows he cannot take away people's 2nd amendment rights by executive order.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


So, you're going to change the subject and NOT edit your original post or title?

See? You guys complain SO MUCH about the MSM lying to further their agenda... I'm seeing more and more where the pro-gun crowd lies to further THEIRS...


Oh really?

I sat there and watched those hearings who were flat out lying as the father of one of the Sandy Hook victims "asked" why anyone needs an "assault weapon".

Point of fact assault weapons were not used in Sandy Hook nor 30 or 100 round magazines,.

Aint no lies coming from the pro gun crowd since they are the ones who clearly know what the hell they are talking about instead of the other side just recycling 70 year old talking points.

www.ijreview.com...
edit on 1-2-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


1. I don't deny that the anti-gun crowd lies to further their agenda. BOTH sides do it.
2. Did you read my posts in this thread? This thread is a lie.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I'm not disagreeing with you or your reading of the bill - I'm not seeing anything that would ban revolvers. I'd just like to point out that some .22s would be banned under the bill. There is the AR-7 Explorer II pistol that looks just like an old broomhandle mauser machine pistol. The detachable magazine (8 rounds) is not in the handle, but forward of the trigger guard, thus it would be banned as I read the legislation. There is also the KelTec PMR30 which is a semiauto pistol holding 30 rounds of 22 magnum contained completely within the handle, which also would be banned under the legislation as I read it. I've recently acquired a Ruger 22/45 target pistol with a threaded barrel that holds 10 rounds in the grip, but would be banned because of the threading. None of the aforementioned pistols is listed in the model and type designations included in the bill, yet all have one feature that qualifies them as assault weapons.

With respect,
ganjoa



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Already Posted

Please contribute to the ongoing discussion

Closing

Thank you

Semper





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join