[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Mag Ban Text (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 1/13/2011 11:07:53 AM EDT
|
Here is the link http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/uploads/mccarthy-magazine_bill.pdf
proposal says you can keep possesion of mags manufactured before ban but transferring/selling them would be illegal with few exceptions 
|
|
I agree it will likely go no where.
...but if it does all your tube fed non-22 call rimfire (17HMR, 17HM2, 5mm Rem, 32 rimfire and other obsolete rimfire cartridges) rifles with a capacity greater than 10rds will be illegal to manufacture or non-nontransferable since it exempts tube fed 22 cal rimfire with capacity greater than 10rd but not other rimfires tube fed weapons. Once again showing, in a small way, how completely ignorant the gun grabbers are about firearms. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BUT BUT BUT ARF said it cant happen!  It won't How do you know...? Not trying to be adversarial, I just question when people start speaking in such absolutes. Didn't Boehner just say there would be no new gun laws? It remains to be seen if he has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to that ignorant bitch |
|
The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible. There is no reason that these devices should be available to the general public. So .gov officials should be the only ones that should have them to be able to "shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible." Good to know..... |
|
Quoted:
I agree it will likely go no where. ...but if it does all your tube fed non-22 call rimfire (17HMR, 17HM2, 5mm Rem, 32 rimfire and other obsolete rimfire cartridges) rifles with a capacity greater than 10rds will be illegal to manufacture or non-nontransferable since it exempts tube fed 22 cal rimfire with capacity greater than 10rd but not other rimfires tube fed weapons. Once again showing, in a small way, how completely ignorant the gun grabbers are about firearms. Tube fed rifles have never been in the crosshairs of any "hi cap" ban and even if this moronic bit of proposal got passed they wont be subject. In any such law the term "detachable" is almost always found. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I agree it will likely go no where. ...but if it does all your tube fed non-22 call rimfire (17HMR, 17HM2, 5mm Rem, 32 rimfire and other obsolete rimfire cartridges) rifles with a capacity greater than 10rds will be illegal to manufacture or non-nontransferable since it exempts tube fed 22 cal rimfire with capacity greater than 10rd but not other rimfires tube fed weapons. Once again showing, in a small way, how completely ignorant the gun grabbers are about firearms. Tube fed rifles have never been in the crosshairs of any "hi cap" ban and even if this moronic bit of proposal got passed they wont be subject. In any such law the term "detachable" is almost always found. .22's are carved out in the bill ETA: ‘‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’’. |
Jeebus, I hope a high cap ban alone wouldn't turn the rest of the nation into California!
|
Quoted:It ain't goin' no where While I agree it's very unlikely the bill proposed will pass as it's written at this time, the possibility remains, however unlikely, that the bill could pass either as it is written now or in a more diluted form.
We all must remain eternally vigilant against any and all attempts to reduce our rights. The people that wish to enact this type of legislation are duplicitous and conniving. As we have witnessed in the past, they will do everything within their perceived power to further their agenda. So, while I feel confident this bill in any form is unlikely to pass we can never rule out the possibility that it might. |
|
Quoted:
The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible. There is no reason that these devices should be available to the general public.
So .gov officials should be the only ones that should have them to be able to "shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible." Good to know..... Pure FUCKING GOLD!! 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible. There is no reason that these devices should be available to the general public.
So .gov officials should be the only ones that should have them to be able to "shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible." Good to know..... Pure FUCKING GOLD!!
It's time to be honest, that's exactly what they are fore and that's exactly why we buy them. Guns are deadly weopons. If they weren't they would absolutely suck to carry around. They should however substitute the word people for bad guy. |
|
This should be a good test of the new House.
I for one do not share the ARFCOM view that it won't go anywhere until I see it die in the house. The amount of attention this incident has received has been higher than other recent similar shootings. Can you imagine the amount of panic buying that will happen if it does? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree it will likely go no where. ...but if it does all your tube fed non-22 call rimfire (17HMR, 17HM2, 5mm Rem, 32 rimfire and other obsolete rimfire cartridges) rifles with a capacity greater than 10rds will be illegal to manufacture or non-nontransferable since it exempts tube fed 22 cal rimfire with capacity greater than 10rd but not other rimfires tube fed weapons. Once again showing, in a small way, how completely ignorant the gun grabbers are about firearms. Tube fed rifles have never been in the crosshairs of any "hi cap" ban and even if this moronic bit of proposal got passed they wont be subject. In any such law the term "detachable" is almost always found. Incorrect. The LCAFD section of the NYS AWB (where the Congresswoman is from) restricts all non rimfire tubes to 10 rounds. |
|
gun control is politically dead.
despite the fact carolyn mccarthy gets a lot of lift form the media and progressive types. but actual voters do not like gun control. so our parasitic reps will not vote for it. they might get un elected and have to find real jobs that are not nearly as lucrative or easy. my .02. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only purpose for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible. There is no reason that these devices should be available to the general public.
So .gov officials should be the only ones that should have them to be able to "shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible." Good to know..... Pure FUCKING GOLD!!
It's time to be honest, that's exactly what they are fore and that's exactly why we buy them. Guns are deadly weopons. If they weren't they would absolutely suck to carry around. They should however substitute the word people for bad guy. That's exactly why I buy them |
|
Quoted: gun control is politically dead. despite the fact carolyn mccarthy gets a lot of lift form the media and progressive types. but actual voters do not like gun control. so our parasitic reps will not vote for it. they might get un elected and have to find real jobs that are not nearly as lucrative or easy. my .02. i think we have gbecome soft and overconfident. it has been a while since a 2a setback with too many wins |
|
I have sent to my rep. So - I have only participated in 1 of each of the sanctioned events, but ....i still did and am trying to help support all.
I would like to first congratulate you on your win in our electoral district. I have viewed a copy of the Congresswoman’s proposal and disagree with its entirety. As an avid sportsman and competitor, high capacity magazines do have their place in civilian hands. If I were to wear out a magazine I would never be able to replace it. The sports I am involved in are USPSA and 3 Gun which typically rely on fewer reloads utilizing extended magazines. Later on if I were to sell or trade a firearm that utilizes high capacity magazines, the magazines would not be able to be transferred with the firearm decreasing its inherent value. The AZ shootings were very tragic. I don’t think that this tragedy warrants the changes anti-gun proponents drool over. If this man wasn’t able to use a firearm, he would have sought alternate means to cause harm. He could have chosen to drive a car through the crowds. Please support those that voted for you and fight against any new restrictive gun legislation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This will go nowhere. I am sure some one predicted the same thing. Right before the 1994 magazine ban passed. 
Remember folks, CONGRESS holds the key here and this bill is a DIRECT RESULT of an attack on one of their own. Don't underestimate its chances of passing. |
|
Quoted:
BUT BUT BUT ARF said it cant happen! Apparently you and a lot of other people have no fucking idea how a bill is processed in our government, and whose approval it has to have to get to a vote. It ISN'T going to happen during the 112th congress / GOP-controlled House. And I better explain that too - they JUST took office, they'll hold it for the next two full years. And hopefully after the 2012 election as well. |
|
I remember when people said Clinton wouldnt push the assault weapons ban, I remember when people said there is no way the bad would sunset. It CAN happen, Its not likely, but it could.
Still a good call to start getting involved to keep it from happening. Time to make some calls, |
|
Quoted:
It prohibits the importation of mags which means LE would not have access to any new stock as well. That alone would kill it. No - LE is not subject to ANY import bans. They can and do import ANY gun/part they want & this bill won't affect that at all. |
|
Quoted:
This should be a good test of the new House. I for one do not share the ARFCOM view that it won't go anywhere until I see it die in the house. The amount of attention this incident has received has been higher than other recent similar shootings. Can you imagine the amount of panic buying that will happen if it does? Would that be panic buying of being smart if it did???? I for one absolutly refuse to pay for a mag what my dad did during the 1st ban... His mistake was my lesson
|
|
Quoted:
It prohibits the importation of mags which means LE would not have access to any new stock as well. That alone would kill it. That also may be the only part I would be OK with if it passed. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BUT BUT BUT ARF said it cant happen! It won't How do you know...? Not trying to be adversarial, I just question when people start speaking in such absolutes. The republican controlled house would never pass it. Pleas don't put all your faith in them. There are still some rinos left. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It prohibits the importation of mags which means LE would not have access to any new stock as well. That alone would kill it. No - LE is not subject to ANY import bans. They can and do import ANY gun/part they want & this bill won't affect that at all. This...everyone here remembers the mags and evil feature AR-15's from the 94 ban that were marked "Military or Law Enforcement Only." |
|
Quoted: Quoted: BUT BUT BUT ARF said it cant happen! Apparently you and a lot of other people have no fucking idea how a bill is processed in our government, and whose approval it has to have to get to a vote. It ISN'T going to happen during the 112th congress / GOP-controlled House. And I better explain that too - they JUST took office, they'll hold it for the next two full years. And hopefully after the 2012 election as well. why not? there are repubs, and NRA members that would happily toss your highcaps in the atlantic. While some here may need an education as to how a bill is created and processed, I think you may need to consider more on how politics actually works......how a rep votes is not decided on the house floor. A party looking to compromise will gladly abandon a rep who doesnt vote as told before the actual constituents will.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This will go nowhere. I am sure some one predicted the same thing. Right before the 1994 magazine ban passed.
Remember folks, CONGRESS holds the key here and this bill is a DIRECT RESULT of an attack on one of their own. Don't underestimate its chances of passing. I know that bob dole could have either stopped or slowed the process back in 94. He did neither. |