PDA

View Full Version : Today's good news


X-NewYawker
01-28-2009, 6:14 AM
Forward or send to every gun owner you know.....
Gun Law Update by Alan Korwin,
Author Gun Laws of America Jan. 5, 2008

Gun-ban list proposed

Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats
have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when
they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress).
It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce
shortly.

I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity,
It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms
dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've
made little mention of criminals.

Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun
bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process,
confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and
more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15,
AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90,
NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR,

or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927
Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable
magazine, SLG 95, SLR
95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or
Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a
folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip
(which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a
forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine,

and has (i) a second pistol grip, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a barrel
shroud or (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip,
and (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more
than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a
pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a detachable

magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a
shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:

Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic
rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or

a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly
suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General." Note

that Obama's pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for

Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you
have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or

any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting

purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable
for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a
sporting event."

In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal
officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a
sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that

devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement
with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by
domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause
of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm

mister dize
01-28-2009, 6:33 AM
Has there been a bill introduced? HR1022 expired with the last congress.

That being said, I DROSed an M1 Carbine on Monday :)

torsf
01-28-2009, 6:44 AM
Hmm, I was thinking of ordering a Garand first from the CMP - I may have to order a carbine first.

Theseus
01-28-2009, 6:50 AM
I am sorry, but this same damned thing gets brought up like 20 times a week. Not to be an *** about it, but look at the date!

Jan. 5, 2008

rod
01-28-2009, 7:55 AM
That's not the Brady Ban list...that's my shopping list.

sorensen440
01-28-2009, 8:02 AM
If I ever meet korwin in a dark alley I'm going to knock him around a bit for spreading that fud.

X-NewYawker
01-28-2009, 8:47 AM
It's NOT fud.
The same things are in both House and Senate failed bills. IF (and I said "if) there is a new AWB it will be identical to one of these two bills. The point that they are now listing "parts" and guns that haven't been listed before is t he point. Be prepared. Join the friggin NRA, etc.,

bwiese
01-28-2009, 9:06 AM
1.) There are not the votes to pass this. Authors are doing 'feel good' stuff.
People remember what happened in 1994. Also, Heller affects federal
legislation. This can be readily challenged on an emergency basis if
passed as none of these firearms are 'dangerous and unusual'.

2.) That bill is dead, a new bill hasn't gotten ANY traction.

3.) They're listing all sortsa crap so it can supposedly be negotiated away
and something like the old Fed AWB could emerge.

4.) Our problems here in CA are not Federal. Let's stay focused.

lioneaglegriffin
01-28-2009, 11:45 AM
1.) There are not the votes to pass this. Authors are doing 'feel good' stuff.
People remember what happened in 1994. Also, Heller affects federal
legislation. This can be readily challenged on an emergency basis if
passed as none of these firearms are 'dangerous and unusual'.

2.) That bill is dead, a new bill hasn't gotten ANY traction.

3.) They're listing all sortsa crap so it can supposedly be negotiated away
and something like the old Fed AWB could emerge.

4.) Our problems here in CA are not Federal. Let's stay focused.

+1 i wish the chicken little sydrome would stop your scaring the newbies.

GrayWolf09
01-28-2009, 11:45 AM
+1:iagree:

Gator Monroe
01-28-2009, 12:00 PM
This ban will be passed Nationally within 3 years (5 tops) Unless we convince not only "True Liberal" Libertarian & Dem/Lib Firearms afficianados here but through ot the Firearms sport and Forum/board world that they must put 2A ahead of all other seculart progressive Ideals they may hold ahead of theitr little Firearms hobby and vote accordingly (And that does not mean for the occasional Blue Dog congressman or woman)

Gator Monroe
01-28-2009, 12:02 PM
This ban will be passed Nationally within 3 years (5 tops) Unless we convince not only "True Liberal" Libertarian & Dem/Lib Firearms afficianados here but through ot the Firearms sport and Forum/board world that they must put 2A ahead of all other seculart progressive Ideals they may hold ahead of theitr little Firearms hobby and vote accordingly (And that does not mean for the occasional Blue Dog congressman or woman)

Sorry for the misspelling buy my Eye hurts and posting here agitates it even more , but it's only pain ...:chris:

tube_ee
01-28-2009, 12:05 PM
As it would be unlikely to pass in any form that is significantly more restrictive that what we in California already deal with.

So it wouldn't affect us much, if at all.

What it would do would be to wake up those in the "free states" that don't give a fig about our struggle for our rights here in California, but would rather ridicule us for not uprooting our entire families and moving out of a place that, gun laws aside, most of us love.

Our fight is their fight, but they don't realize that.

It would also be challenged in court, and if the ruling was issued post-incorporation, it would thereby invalidate our laws as well. Or, if it was upheld, we'd know where we stand, and every state would be in the same place. We'd have the same fight, but with many, many more soldiers on our side.

--Shannon

soopafly
01-28-2009, 1:04 PM
1.) There are not the votes to pass this. Authors are doing 'feel good' stuff.
People remember what happened in 1994. Also, Heller affects federal
legislation. This can be readily challenged on an emergency basis if
passed as none of these firearms are 'dangerous and unusual'.

2.) That bill is dead, a new bill hasn't gotten ANY traction.

3.) They're listing all sortsa crap so it can supposedly be negotiated away
and something like the old Fed AWB could emerge.

4.) Our problems here in CA are not Federal. Let's stay focused.

QFT...why do people keep posting this?:confused:

Hopi
01-28-2009, 1:10 PM
QFT...why do people keep posting this?:confused:

There are 3 camps of folks here at CGN

1. Unsubstantiated FUD farmers
2. The worthless "I told you so-ers"
3. The rest, and majority, of us that are still conscience and intelligent...and fighting the fight. A fight that will be won with strategy, not fear.


It is becoming easier and easier to see who is who.

soopafly
01-28-2009, 1:15 PM
There are 3 camps of folks here at CGN

1. Unsubstantiated FUD farmers
2. The worthless "I told you so-ers"
3. The rest, and majority, of us that are still conscience and intelligent...and fighting the fight. A fight that will be won with strategy, not fear.


It is becoming easier and easier to see who is who.
Tell me about it...people need to chillax with all that "chicken little/HR1022" mess

Our fight is right here, in California...

Some Guy
01-28-2009, 5:17 PM
Just curious about the expired Federal AWB, did it prevent accessories such as pistol grips (amongst other evil things) from being purchased or manufactured?

Kid Stanislaus
01-28-2009, 5:26 PM
[QUOTE=bwiese;1959303]1.) There are not the votes to pass this. Authors are doing 'feel good' stuff.
People remember what happened in 1994. Also, Heller affects federal legislation. [QUOTE]

We don't need to start thinking that Heller is some kind of panacea that'll cure all our concerns. If Obama can't get this kind of stuff passed early on then he'll wait until he's made a couple of appointments to SCOTUS and then make his move.

bwiese
01-28-2009, 6:08 PM
[quote=bwiese;1959303]1.) There are not the votes to pass this. Authors are doing 'feel good' stuff.
People remember what happened in 1994. Also, Heller affects federal legislation. [quote]

We don't need to start thinking that Heller is some kind of panacea that'll cure all our concerns. If Obama can't get this kind of stuff passed early on then he'll wait until he's made a couple of appointments to SCOTUS and then make his move.

Assuming the 5 majority votes in Heller stay healthy and in service (they trend toward the younger side of the court anyway), the only nominations/ replacements to the Supremes will be on the other side, which has no effect.

There is always some risk, but Heller is stare decisis (held opinion). The Supremes are not gonna flip.

There could be degree/extent modifications with a more unfavorable court but I think we have enough stuff running up sooner than Obama nominations/ replacements will happen.

The votes aren't there anyway for another Fed AWB.

trashman
01-28-2009, 8:09 PM
There is always some risk, but Heller is stare decisis (held opinion). The Supremes are not gonna flip.


Bill's right, and what's more - I would bet that a sudden shift in the balance of SCOTUS, and a subsquent decision to overturn Heller would lead to a Republican electoral landslide in the House at the next election cycle.

My guess is that we will look back in 30 years and marvel at how close we cut it, timing-wise, with Heller. It will be the decision that pays dividends for decades to come, and it came not a moment too soon.

--Neill

sorensen440
01-28-2009, 8:11 PM
It's NOT fud.
The same things are in both House and Senate failed bills. IF (and I said "if) there is a new AWB it will be identical to one of these two bills. The point that they are now listing "parts" and guns that haven't been listed before is t he point. Be prepared. Join the friggin NRA, etc.,
I really do hope that they try to run with this as it has no chance at standing

Librarian
01-28-2009, 8:17 PM
QFT...why do people keep posting this?:confused:

Fear.

Some folks probably do get a bit of a thrill, but most look at these things, remember that we DID have the AWB, and don't have any idea about how things stand today.

So, they ask.

That's not irrational. They mostly want to be aware, and want others to be aware, so this stuff can be opposed.

We can't even put up an FAQ for it - these things come in several flavors, and they roll off the 'current' threads page, and the thread titles are often not the key words or phrases that stick in the poster's mind. Especially (but not only!) new users don't seem to recognize the commonality.

For example, will "Today's good news" connect to "Alan Korwin email"? That's how I remember this announcement.

but
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=144536 from 1/11

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=143304 from 1/7

are the only other ones that I can find that mention it specifically.

And Mr. Korwin's article is referenced by others, so the source is not often his, but, say, World Net Daily.

Another problem with FAQs and stickies is that they do not get read. I really don't know what we can do.

I prefer to think of these repetitions as well-intentioned, but somewhat thoughtless, on the order of forwarding email stories of LSD-Blue Star Tattoos.

AngelDecoys
01-28-2009, 8:43 PM
We can't even put up an FAQ for it - these things come in several flavors, and they roll off the 'current' threads page, and the thread titles are often not the key words or phrases that stick in the poster's mind. Especially (but not only!) new users don't seem to recognize the commonality.

Another problem with FAQs and stickies is that they do not get read. I really don't know what we can do.

True, but if someone did make an AW Ban 'anxiety' thread it could be stickied thereby focusing attention to that thread. At the same time, the mods could make a point of closing these random threads and at the same time link the sticky for information.

That would be a lot helpful for any newbie, and/or any infrequent passerby doing a search for relevant AW news.

Librarian
01-29-2009, 1:57 AM
True, but if someone did make an AW Ban 'anxiety' thread it could be stickied thereby focusing attention to that thread. At the same time, the mods could make a point of closing these random threads and at the same time link the sticky for information.

That would be a lot helpful for any newbie, and/or any infrequent passerby doing a search for relevant AW news.

You're right- it's worth trying.

See
Ammo ban, AW ban, new Brady effort, Whitehouse web site: the sky is NOT falling

trinydex
01-29-2009, 2:18 PM
As it would be unlikely to pass in any form that is significantly more restrictive that what we in California already deal with.

So it wouldn't affect us much, if at all.

What it would do would be to wake up those in the "free states" that don't give a fig about our struggle for our rights here in California, but would rather ridicule us for not uprooting our entire families and moving out of a place that, gun laws aside, most of us love.

Our fight is their fight, but they don't realize that.

It would also be challenged in court, and if the ruling was issued post-incorporation, it would thereby invalidate our laws as well. Or, if it was upheld, we'd know where we stand, and every state would be in the same place. We'd have the same fight, but with many, many more soldiers on our side.

--Shannon

you don't think they'd reword it to say PERMANENTLY modifed fixed magazine?

i'm wondering at what point the courts or the supreme court justices would get to see a new awb and overturn it. how would that take...