Update on gun grabber strategy - Shooting Sports Forum


News and Political Forum News and Politics spoken here!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2013, 18:05   #1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,282
Update on gun grabber strategy

Hi everyone;

I'm seeing repeated references for a late spring/early summer timeframe for the launch of a gun bill. Here's what I think is in the cards:
1. The bill coming out of committee in the Senate will have "no personal xfers", "mag ban", possibly some changes to "prohibited person" language that they can exploit (expansion of def'n of 'mental defect').
2. There will be an effort by Feinstein & co. to attach her ban to the main bill on the floor. This will provide cover for all the antigun dems and rinos to say that they are protecting us from gun control while they are twisting the knife in our back by voting for gun control.
3. The mag ban is the one that is most likely to get tossed, but they really want this so don't count on it.
4. Rinos in the house have already signalled that they are willing to "do something on large magazines" so watch out!

The timing is interesting, in that it implies that they are very much hoping for another school shooting. Think of it this way - if they push their bill and it goes down in flames only to have a school shooting the next week, they pushed it too early. OTOH, by setting a tentative schedule of "end of school" they can have the max time for a school shooting to occur. If one happens significantly sooner than the end of the term, they will jump on it as an "emergency" ('something must be done - for the children', etc). It is also a fact that the end of an academic year is more stressful, particularly in the high school/college setting where failure is still somewhat permitted. This increases the chances of an exploitable tragedy occurring at the time that the dems have tentatively scheduled their vote.

Thus, failing another evil little loser going off the deep end, figure that a vote will occur about the time classes get out for the summer. But that random event can happen at any time so be ready to write/call be a PITA to your congresscritter as soon as you hear about one. Rest assured that the gun grabbers already have signs printed, letters written, etc. They did last time.

I would suggest everyone compose nice generic "I oppose gun control of all types" letters and have them ready to go, just in case.

All the best,
Grumpy
grumpy_old_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 18:33   #2
Full Member
 
GAMEOVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Commie Bait & Tackle Shop, Dixie
Posts: 6,763
Makes pefect sense to me.

Extend till the end of May 2013 and maximize opportunities for the next mass school shooting.

Hide or attach the bill with some other meaningless piece of a bill so the RINOS can claim ignorance.

June to September 2013 nothing of any significance gets passed during summer vacations.

November 2013 to August 2014 mid-term elections and trying to save their ass.

Their last window to lie and deceive is between now and end of May 2013.
GAMEOVER is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 19:26   #3
Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,791
I just got the update from the GOA email. The senate Republicans and Democrats have cut a deal on how certain parliamentary procedure works in the senate. Democrats didn't get the 51 votes they wanted but here is what they did get;

"a two-year “special order” -- which will expire in two years at the end of the 113th Congress. (How convenient. The Democrats put a time limit on this onerous rule in case they are no longer in the majority after the next elections.) That “special order” allows Harry Reid to proceed to the text of legislation without a filibuster of the “motion to proceed” -- but only if he pays the penalty of allowing Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to offer the first amendment.

In addition, the Senate “deal” would allow a bill to be sent to House/Senate conference with virtually no ability to resist. That's important because a House/Senate conference report is generally un-amendable -- and must be dealt with on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.".


This is the level of degradation that the senate has come to and it may be the key to having the gun ban installed into the law.

Here is the GOA's interpretation of these rule changes;

"What this means, as a practical matter, is that we cannot afford for ONE WORD of gun control to pass the Senate -- NOT ONE WORD. In the past, pro-gun Senators could have filibustered a gun bill and prevented it from going to conference (when it was suspected that conferees would take a relatively harmless bill and make it worse). But under the new rules, there is nothing we can do to keep a so-called “innocuous” gun bill from going to conference where legislators can then write the Feinstein amendment or a national gun registry into the bill.".
hottarod is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 02-05-2013, 19:47   #4
Full Member
 
Brian S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,527
Originally Posted by grumpy_old_man View Post
Rinos in the house have already signalled that they are willing to "do something on large magazines" so watch out!
What's your feeling on belt-feds? I haven't heard any talk but it was definitely included at the bottom of Di Fi's list.
Brian S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 20:29   #5
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,282
Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
What's your feeling on belt-feds? I haven't heard any talk but it was definitely included at the bottom of Di Fi's list.
Just my opinion, but they are trying hard to keep us from rules-lawyering them on this. Belts are specifically named as "feed devices", and there is language to prohibit the attachment of multiple smaller capacity devices together - i.e. the harmonica mag idea I had (basically a set of smaller mags that are held in place and moved sequentially as each is exhausted) is dead before it got started.

Not sure if it would get an ammo hopper though. Japanese had a system where you put stripper clips into an ammo hopper to feed the Nambu Type 11 LMG (see forgottenweapons.com/light-machine-guns/type-11-nambu-lmg for reference).

We just plain gotta beat 'em on this, is my opinion. Worst worry is that there will be another photogenic incident during the 3 months or so of maximum vulnerability that leads to them being able to bums rush us in the hysteria. Second biggest worry is that the fix may already be in, since the RINOs seem to have backbones of jelly.

Wish I could be more positive. I always wanted a belt fed myself!

All the best,
Grumpy
PS Note the grip assembly on the Nambu Type 11. I wonder if that would be hit by a ban, from the standpoint that it is not a "protruding pistol grip" nor is it a "thumbhole". It is butt-ugly, but that never stopped me from using a piece of equipment that gets the job done.
PPS Upon rereading, the magazine language is even more onerous. Consider that it in no way is defined as being associated with an action type. Thus, the civil war re-enactor types who are well heeled enough to have period gatling guns will get hit if their feed tray can hold more than 10 rounds.... And what it does to a mitrailleuse or a Walch Navy 12 shot revolver leaves me cold. This sucker doesn't just eviscerate the weapons of the 20th century, it actually hits some amazing museum pieces from the 19th!

Last edited by grumpy_old_man; 02-06-2013 at 14:54.
grumpy_old_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 18:07   #6
Full on Eco-Capitalist!!!
 
Adjuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Idaho, Land of the Free.
Posts: 10,248
The ONLY way we will have any chance to get this stopped is state by state my friends.

The STATES need to step up NOW and pass laws that totally negate any and all federal weapons restrictions, and clearly have fines, prison time and very onerous penalties for any federal employee, officer etc. who tries to enforce any federal gun laws in these states.

1) The gun laws we have now are silly.

2) There is zero reason to restrict fully select fire weapons, suppressors etc.

3) The details in 1 and 2 don't deter criminals one iota, thus they are bogus laws.

States need to PROACTIVELY revoke all federal weapons laws, and end the power the BATFE has in our states, and limit them to international sales and state to state transfer/sale of items/goods.

States should decide if, and what is sold, owned and kept, and those laws should respect, and not infringe on the Second Amendment at all.

Yes, this is going above, and beyond just opposing no changes, but actually making it less hassle, and easy to buy, own and operate military style weapons.

That's the point.

The 2A is not about hunting folks.

It's to keep tyrants in DC and your local State Capitals respectful of YOU and I.

The only way that happens is if you and I get to own the same weapons that the average soldier, LEO or BATFE/FEMA/HHS agents come to town with.

See how it works.
__________________
Obummer says I'm a pre-op transgender Blask Lesbian.
Trump says I can just reach out and grab what I want.
Look! He reached out and grabbed Michelle's Pussy!
Adjuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 18:23   #7
Full Member
 
Brian S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,527
Originally Posted by grumpy_old_man View Post
Just my opinion, but they are trying hard to keep us from rules-lawyering them on this. Belts are specifically named as "feed devices", and there is language to prohibit the attachment of multiple smaller capacity devices together...
The language on belt-fed isn't clear and there are several belted firearms sold even in states like CA. I can buy a "featureless" semi-auto 1919A4, M60, M249 and possibly the RPB but haven't looked into that specifically. For complete finished SAs, I've seen prices range from $2400-$18K...definitely not something for the average firearm enthusiast.

My feeling is that if the GOP is weak on the high-capacity mag issue, there may be little opposition to the now specifically named "belt-fed firearms" in the Feinstein's new bill. If they are agreeable to any mag restrictions at all, say over 30rds for instance...they wouldn't have a strong argument to deny belt-fed restrictions since the round count is essentially unlimited.
Brian S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 18:49   #8
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,282
Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
The language on belt-fed isn't clear and there are several belted firearms sold even in states like CA. I can buy a "featureless" semi-auto 1919A4, M60, M249 and possibly the RPB but haven't looked into that specifically. For complete finished SAs, I've seen prices range from $2400-$18K...definitely not something for the average firearm enthusiast.

My feeling is that if the GOP is weak on the high-capacity mag issue, there may be little opposition to the now specifically named "belt-fed firearms" in the Feinstein's new bill. If they are agreeable to any mag restrictions at all, say over 30rds for instance...they wouldn't have a strong argument to deny belt-fed restrictions since the round count is essentially unlimited.
Hi Brian S;

Here is the text from Thomas on Feinstein's S.150:

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

Belts are covered explicitly.

Worse, so are some of the 19th century lever guns with large cap tubular magazines larger than .22 caliber, like the Winchester 1892 with its 15 shot magazine. If the magazines are no longer freely transferable, then neither are the guns. The whole thing is a travesty, and maybe this gives a new bit of life to our reply to the silly "why do you need more than 10" BS, since obviously someone back in 1892 thought it was a good idea to have that many cartridges handy and their handiwork's have been with us ever since. Moreover, the "it bans antique guns too" may be a useful argument against the magazine ban in its own right to the uncommitted. And they are the ones we have to reach.

All the best,
Grumpy

Last edited by grumpy_old_man; 02-06-2013 at 20:20.
grumpy_old_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 21:03   #9
Full Member
 
Brian S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,527
Originally Posted by grumpy_old_man View Post
Belts are covered explicitly.
That's a new provision that may or may not pass. I'm saying existing law is vague so unless the State of CA quickly rams something through like NY did, belt-fed devices are still obtainable.....for now.
Brian S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 21:19   #10
Full Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,282
Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
That's a new provision that may or may not pass. I'm saying existing law is vague so unless the State of CA quickly rams something through like NY did, belt-fed devices are still obtainable.....for now.
My apologies for the misunderstanding Brian S. I was writing about Feinstein's S.150, since its the basis for federal legislation that may pass. It sounds like the dems are working to put together a composite "gun bill" in the Senate that has the mag ban included, but not the AWB. That can be added later on the floor of the Senate - if they have the votes. McCarthy's bill in the house uses exactly the same language, but I doubt it will be scheduled for a vote if Boehner wants to keep his seat, so the Senate is key. Anything that guts our rights will start there, so we need to stop it there, which will be harder with the new filibuster rules.

Anyway, under existing Kali law, I am not sure about belts. Particularly disintegrating link ones - I mean, when you use it once, is it "gone forever" under Kali law? Not sure at all. Of course the only people in Kali who have FA guns are the wealthy and powerful so I doubt the cops will hassle them on it regardless of the technicalities.

All the best,
Grumpy
grumpy_old_man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 21:51   #11
Full Member
 
Brian S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,527
I don't know enough about the law to do it justice. If you want to read about it, this is a site with links about CA-legal belt feds and compliance.
FIREARMS (M249 MK46 belt fed firearms for CIVILIANS, POLICE and MILITARY)
Brian S is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 21:00.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All information is copyright by Perfectunion.com unless already under copyright.