Perfect Union banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
RE:
[URL=http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx]NRA-ILA | Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill[/URL] said:
. . . Expands the definition of "assault weapon" by including:
- 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. . . .
- Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, . . . .
I imagine the model of Mini-14 that will be classed as an AW is the one Santa just brought me, because it has a pistol grip and folding stock (the 20-round magazines can be easily replaced with 10's).

My question to the group (based upon how the '94 ban was conducted as well as anything you've read about the proposed '13 ban) is:
If the offending features are replaced with non-offending features (in my case replacing the ATI stock with a wood stock from an older Mini-14), does my Mini-14 come off their list, or is the NFA branding at time of manufacture permanent, regardless of changes made by the owner?

Put another way, would changing the stock and magazines be a way to avoid the $200 tax if it indeed becomes enacted?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,408 Posts
RE:

I imagine the model of Mini-14 that will be classed as an AW is the one Santa just brought me, because it has a pistol grip and folding stock (the 20-round magazines can be easily replaced with 10's).

My question to the group (based upon how the '94 ban was conducted as well as anything you've read about the proposed '13 ban) is:
If the offending features are replaced with non-offending features (in my case replacing the ATI stock with a wood stock from an older Mini-14), does my Mini-14 come off their list, or is the NFA branding at time of manufacture permanent, regardless of changes made by the owner?

Put another way, would changing the stock and magazines be a way to avoid the $200 tax if it indeed becomes enacted?
This is only my opinion and an assumption but if the model name or number is specifically named nothing could remove it from the list
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
this will NEVER pass, guys. the industry would be shut down, or ATF would have to hire 100,000 new workers to process the applications. The bloodletting in Congress, next election, would make the 1994 loss for the Dems look MILD by comparison. so don't sweat it, it's not going to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
it worst, we will get a newer version of the old ban, with all current autorifles grandfathered in to normal, legal possession.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
this will NEVER pass, guys. the industry would be shut down, or ATF would have to hire 100,000 new workers to process the applications. The bloodletting in Congress, next election, would make the 1994 loss for the Dems look MILD by comparison. so don't sweat it, it's not going to happen.
Ya.....and "B.O" WAS NOT GOING TO GET RE-ELECTED EITHER.....;)
Start e-mailing your elected reps now saying no to taking away our 2nd amendment rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,366 Posts
it worst, we will get a newer version of the old ban, with all current autorifles grandfathered in to normal, legal possession.
Hi Whoa;

FWIW, my take is 50/50 we beat 'em cold. It will be a lot of phone calls/letters/sleepless nights to win, but we have a chance.

If we do lose though and the worst happens with NFA registration, one possibility is what happened in Australia, where they got their ban and only got about 19% of the weapons they thought they would. Then the gov't declared victory ("I guess there were only 1/5 as many weapons as we thought - YAY!") and pretended that people had handed 'em all in. In that case, the entire gun-owning population becomes fair game to the feds for fishing expeditions. From time to time EBR's will pop up and all the sheeple will get a chill down their spines as they thrill to the news coverage of an "illegal arsenal".

A similar thing happened in Canada too, where only about 1/6 of the gunowners reportedly registered their rifles - and still swamped the system. Gov't there declared victory and did a "we got 'em all registered" victory dance when it started though.

Darned if I know what the new year holds, but it is not going to be a good time for my blood pressure.

All the best,
Grumpy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
Ya.....and "B.O" WAS NOT GOING TO GET RE-ELECTED EITHER.....;)
Start e-mailing your elected reps now saying no to taking away our 2nd amendment rights.
+!

No complacency allowed this time. Move it or lose it!
Remember, this doesn't just affect you. IT affects your children and their children too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,234 Posts
RE:

I imagine the model of Mini-14 that will be classed as an AW is the one Santa just brought me, because it has a pistol grip and folding stock (the 20-round magazines can be easily replaced with 10's).

My question to the group (based upon how the '94 ban was conducted as well as anything you've read about the proposed '13 ban) is:
If the offending features are replaced with non-offending features (in my case replacing the ATI stock with a wood stock from an older Mini-14), does my Mini-14 come off their list, or is the NFA branding at time of manufacture permanent, regardless of changes made by the owner?

Put another way, would changing the stock and magazines be a way to avoid the $200 tax if it indeed becomes enacted?
To answer the question: It would really depend on the language of the Bill. The fed coukl go by either the serial numbers as listed under the catalog number (as built) or they could go by "offending features". My opinion is that they would like to have as many registered as possible. In that case they would probably write the bill to define assault weapons by thier features, Like they do in Ca.

If I were you, I would look into getting a factory wood stock, or maybe a hogue overmold, if you would like to avoid possible registration. On the other side of the coin, if you would like to have an assault style mini,but have not registered it, it would be a felony to put any offending features on a non-registered weapon after a certain date. This is the kind of sh#t we have to put up with in Ca.

Good luck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,274 Posts
It won't make any difference. Feinstein is using California's ban gun list. Your Mini is on it. They do not care what stock you have on it, it's a semi auto so it will be gone. Whoa is right, this needs to be shut down at congress. kwg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,791 Posts
It is what somebody already said. If your specific model fire arm is listed it doesn't matter what features it has.

The features part of the bill are to catch everything else they didn't list and future weapons or models that don't even exist yet.

The gun enthusiasts of Australia and the UK did not believe a confiscation of weapons could ever happen in their countries either.

According to most of the polls the people of this country are just about 50/50 split on this just like they were in the election. You can very likely bet and win money that anti-gun people are writing their senators and congress people by the massive numbers. If you don't think this is a fight you have already lost. With the kinds of polling numbers being gathered something will get passed and we are not going to like it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,408 Posts
It won't make any difference. Feinstein is using California's ban gun list. Your Mini is on it. They do not care what stock you have on it, it's a semi auto so it will be gone. Whoa is right, this needs to be shut down at congress. kwg
California doesnt have any Mini's listed
California cant ban by series either
California can only ban by specific model listing or feature combination
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Hi Whoa;

FWIW, my take is 50/50 we beat 'em cold. It will be a lot of phone calls/letters/sleepless nights to win, but we have a chance.

If we do lose though and the worst happens with NFA registration, one possibility is what happened in Australia, where they got their ban and only got about 19% of the weapons they thought they would. Then the gov't declared victory ("I guess there were only 1/5 as many weapons as we thought - YAY!") and pretended that people had handed 'em all in. In that case, the entire gun-owning population becomes fair game to the feds for fishing expeditions. From time to time EBR's will pop up and all the sheeple will get a chill down their spines as they thrill to the news coverage of an "illegal arsenal".

A similar thing happened in Canada too, where only about 1/6 of the gunowners reportedly registered their rifles - and still swamped the system. Gov't there declared victory and did a "we got 'em all registered" victory dance when it started though.

Darned if I know what the new year holds, but it is not going to be a good time for my blood pressure.

All the best,
Grumpy
Now from what I understand Australia never had constitutional rights for gun ownership, not sure of Canada. Also I understand Australia already had regulations on who could own firearms. That being the case, if this insane bill is passed, can it be challenged in the courts based on the 2nd amendment. I agree that it is highly unlikely to pass congress in its current form, but how much protection do we have in the constitution. From what I read the constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment basically confirms our right to bear arms, so in the eyes of libs does regulation violate this right? The idea that we have to register already owned guns and pay a "tax" to keep them, be finger printed, etc, seems like a pretty big infringement of our civil liberties, not that they care, they just passed 5 more years of electronic eves dropping. So do we have a chance in the courts if the most extreme portions of this proposed madness is passed?

Jimbo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,791 Posts
Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

The Australian constitution did not give the government the power to enact gun laws. There are 2 ways to interpret constitutions or laws. Strict interpretation means if it is not written you can't do it. Loose interpretation says if it is not mentioned you can decide if you want to or not. Obviously, they did.

If a gun ban bill is passed it will most likely be challenged as unconstitutional and eventually wind up in the Supreme Court.

With Sotomayor now being appointed we would probably be in trouble if it does.

That link above there is Sotomayor demonstrating her expert ability at legalbabble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Obamacare was proven unconstitutional until the Supreme Court said it was okay as long as it is a tax. I hope this doesn't repeat itself, implementing a gun tax that can be monitored and enforced by the IRS too. Imagine having to list firearms on every tax return. Yeah call me crazy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,791 Posts
The gun grabber bill taxes semi-auto's at $200 a pop, with finger printing, background check and national registration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,952 Posts
this will NEVER pass, guys. the industry would be shut down, or ATF would have to hire 100,000 new workers to process the applications. The bloodletting in Congress, next election, would make the 1994 loss for the Dems look MILD by comparison. so don't sweat it, it's not going to happen.
I hope not, but don't be so confident at this point in the game Whoa. Do you doubt that Hussein Obama and the progressives behind him would love to hire 100,000 new ATF workers? That's their mission.

And don't forget Hussein Obamacare. There may have been bloodletting in 2010, but they still stuck it up our rears, death panels and all. Now it's the law of the land even though many of the a-holes that voted for it are fat and happy in retirement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Here guys. I'm posting a very simple link in order for us to combat this despicable gun ban!. All you have to do is click on the link, fill out just a little bit of info and write a very short message and it will automatically send a copy of it to Congress your local representatives. Even the White House! All at the same time, guys, I implore you, now is not the time to be afraid to fill out just a little bit of info to fight this darn thing just check it out Congress.org – Get informed, get involved
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
The libs have a cow if someone asks for identification in order to vote, or worse yet, institute a POLL TAX. The poll taxes were struck down as an infringement of the right to vote (discriminating against and burdening the poor thus preventing them from voting). Well, geeze Louise, a gun tax sure discriminates and infringes on a right clearly stated in the Constitution. Maybe there should be an abortion tax on the "right to privacy" that was created out of thin air. The right to vote and bear arms are pretty well stated and ought to be untaxed.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top