PDA

View Full Version : Compromise AW Ban


tygerpaw
02-20-2006, 2:58 PM
You know, I really hate the "Assault Weapon" ban. It is a stupid law, does not stop criminals or whackos from commiting crimes, etc. It is confusing, even to the people who make and enforce the law. The state spends tons of money for the DOJ to administer this ridiculous law. Plus, those with registered "assault weapons" can not even leave them to family members (I wonder if this aspect of the law was ever challenged in court?) I am preaching to the choir, I know.

Now, the state is concerned about the fire power available with these weapons, right? Would it not make the more sense to eliminate the firearms ban, and leave in the standard capacity magazine ban? The magazine is the heart of the firepower potential for a semi-automatic rifle. How does a "flash hider" or pistol grip make any difference to the dangerousness of the weapon? I can take my M1A with my pre-ban 20 rd. mag and drive to the range with it in my back window gun rack and there is no problem whatsover. However, if I remove my PRK compliant muzzle brake, and replace with with the USGI flash suppressor, I am now guilty of illegal transportation of an assault weapon and illegal possesion of an assault weapon. I am in for what, 10 years in the state penetentiary? All that without even threatening to shoot somebody, let alone actually shoot somebody.

Sorry for the rant. All this to say that I would rather be restricted to 10 round magazines (at the range, I rarely load more than five anyway, shooting for tight groups) then have all these absolutely rediculous rules to live by that the criminal element won't even begin to pay attention to. I would even be willing to accept treating semi-autos the same as handguns (if they in turn compromised and allowed any semi-auto rifle to be sold) and have them registered.

This is just an idea, but if someone more knowledgeable and more eloquent with the English language could convince a democrat assembly person to write a bill that would simplify the whole matter, would infringe less on our rights, and would be (in their eyes) more effective in preventing mass shootings.

Obviously, I would prefer no ban whatsover, but just a "high cap" magazine ban would be more tolerable, to me anyway.
Ok guys, let me have it......

dwtt
02-20-2006, 3:07 PM
The people who pushed through the AW ban are not interested in any compromise because their true goal is the outlawing of ALL firearms. They are doing it a little bit at a time.

ArmedBear
02-20-2006, 3:19 PM
The only aspect of "AW bans" that could possibly have any effect is the magazine size limit, and then only if it could be enforced against criminals.

If couldn't, really, but let's imagine that a magazine size ban could actually be enforced, and that criminals would be suddenly unable to obtain 30-rounders.

Does a certain stock design make a rifle especially useful to criminals? No.
Does a flash hider really do much, when carefully-chosen ammo for any gun can reduce the flash a lot? No.
Does a forward-mounted pistol grip make a gun more dangerous? No.
What about an AR or AK? Are these rifles really more dangerous than Mini-14's, FAL's or M1As? No. Actually, the effective range of a .308 is a lot more than that of the "assault rifle" ammo.
Does a pistol designed with a separate mag well like a broomhandle Mauser pose a greater threat than a Luger? No.

The magazine size limit does keep law-abiding citizens from having a handgun that will be as effective as a robber's (since he will probably not abide by magazine size laws), but it still is the only aspect of AW law that actually makes ANY sense from a technical perspective. If you could keep people from having 50 rounds at their disposal, it might slow down criminals, in theory though not in practice. The other laws, however, cannot have any real effect, even in theory, since they ban aspects of firearm design (model number, grip shape, etc.) that have little or no impact on firepower.

The fact that the law allows a gun with all the "evil" features, as long as it has a fixed 10-round magazine, just reaffirms that fact.

-aK-
02-20-2006, 3:43 PM
The only thing that makes any sense is to eliminate any gun control and stiffen penalties for violent crimes.

CalExile
02-20-2006, 5:13 PM
The most lethal weapon in my safe is a Springfield M1A. It is very accurate with almost no recoil. I can put repeated .308 rounds on target. My AR15, not as accurate or lethal, is banned because of it's features that have nothing to do with the lethality of the weapon.

I agree with the above statement, that the anti-gunners just want to ban all guns. Anti-gunners don't care if they enact stupid, hard to understand legislation. Whatever it is it gets them one step closer to a total ban.

DSA_FAL
02-20-2006, 6:30 PM
I would almost be satisfied from a practical perspective (though not on principle) if they changed SB23 from a 1 to 2 evil features limit. That would make it mirror the thankfully expired Federal AW ban; and frankly, the world didn't end with that law in effect, stupid as it was.

Charliegone
02-20-2006, 7:37 PM
There is no comprimising with anti-gun punks. They will just come out with a "its for the children" line and call you anti-american. They have thick skulls and will never ever listen to reason. The only thing we can do is
a. convince Californians that gun control is stupid and doesn't work with facts (which we all know is pretty much impossible in this state)
b. get a rkba intiative passed so that it is included in the CA constitution. We than might have a chance to fight back these ridiculously stupid laws.
c. Redistrict, which unfortunately an intiative did not pass thanks to ignorance of some Californians...oh well.:rolleyes: :(

dwtt
02-20-2006, 7:55 PM
There is no comprimising with anti-gun punks. They will just come out with a "its for the children" line and call you anti-american. (
The anti-gun people have a new line. They are saying guns are now a national security threat because terrorists would buy them. That's how they got the .50cal banned in CA and are now trying to get it banned in other states. Look for your .308 hunting rifles to be reclassified as "terrorist sniper rifles" in the future. Those twisted people won't stop until ALL guns are banned and confiscated from the people.

Charliegone
02-20-2006, 9:46 PM
Tygerpaw's proposal has some sensible aspects to it. I don't happen to agree with all the details; for example, why is my H&K USP in .45 acceptable with a 10-round mag, and not with a 12-round mag? Does anyone seriously think that 2 more rounds (or 8 more rounds) in a semi-auto handgun make it a dangerous weapon?

But the important part is that it is a proposal, which at the least will form a basis for discussion. And he tries to evaluate his proposal with sensible criteria, like balancing the desire to protect people from the misuse of guns with the right of people to own and use guns.

However, exactly because it is a sensible proposal, it has less chance of being discussed (or even succeeding) than a snowball in hell. The reason is that today, we have two camps in the gun rights debate. On one side are anti-gunners, who think all guns are evil, who are perfectly happy to distort facts, statistics, and laws, who will play dirty if necessary, and are trying to step by step strip away gun right. On the other side are pro-gunners, who think all gun control is evil, who are perfectly happy to distort facts, statistics, and laws, who will play dirty if necessary, and are trying to step by step strip away all gun control. Neither side is listening to arguments. Both sides "know" that they are right, and can "prove" it by reciting religious mantras (like "protect our children" or "second amendment", neither of which is actually relevant to the gun control debate). In such a climate, a sensible compromise or a discussion is impossible; instead you get a dirty unfair and not sportsmanlike ballgame, in which occasionally one side scores a goal.

Thats true. If we could comprimise I bet it would make both sides happy. But you know, can't have your cake and eat it too.:(

shecky
02-20-2006, 10:20 PM
In this political climate where too many folks are perfectly willing to let govt wiretap their phone conversations, sift through email, etc, trying to get more freedoms for firearms will be a difficult sell.

Bling Bling 2.0
02-20-2006, 10:48 PM
I think the biggest problem we face are soccer moms. They are as anit-gun as they come. And becuase they sit on both sides of the politcal fence, very few politicians dare to go against their wishes.

Republicans will probably never sit in any California office again in a few years. Let's face it, the majority of Californian's are pansies that are scared to call things like they are (or just don't know the English word for it). Our only hope now is for pro-gun dems.

Inoxmark
02-20-2006, 11:11 PM
Do a search on this board for AB2218. That 2004 bill by La Suer proposed just that: over 10rd mag = AW, 10rd or less = not AW.
After much discussions this board decided to support it. Unfortunately soon thereafter there was nothing to support because the author withdrew his bill.

islanderman7
02-20-2006, 11:12 PM
the bad thing about banning firearms altogether is that are freedom is in jepoardy. basically the government can control the people because they have the fire power.

shecky
02-21-2006, 12:21 AM
the bad thing about banning firearms altogether is that are freedom is in jepoardy. basically the government can control the people because they have the fire power.

The government can control the people already. In fact, some of the government's biggest supporters are avid gun owners.

shecky
02-21-2006, 12:38 AM
I think the real moral is: the problem is not the soccer moms. The problem are lawmakers (mostly democratic) who think that they have to service their constituency by passing more and more insane gun control measures. I think that most of their constituency actually doesn't care a bit about the fine details of gun control, probably doesn't care about gun control at all. Talking to the typical democratic voters, I find that they care about a lot of other issues, like school funding. The lawmakers simply cheat: since they can't deliver what their voters really want (more money for schools), since it would cost money and require making real compromises, they instead deliver something that's easy to promise and costs nothing, like tougher gun control.

For this reason, I think it is important that shooters and gun owners with democratic leanings contact their legislators, and make it clear to them that they DON'T want more gun control, absolutely on the contrary. I call Laird and Simitian's offices twice a year. Hope it helps a little bit (so far it hasn't).

I agree with you on this point. I have a feeling that gun control isn't a make or break issue with most rank and file Democrats, and certainly not with the ever so important middle swing voters. The task at hand is convincing the party that they can jettison the issue without suffering at the polls. It's a delicate enough balance, that I fear it may never happen.

gmcem50
02-21-2006, 1:00 AM
Listen to all you guys talking about 'sensible compromises' and such. What a load of crap! To have a compromise, both parties have to be honest. To honor or live up to the particular points of a compromise requires the parties involved to be honest in their motives. As we all know, that is clearly not the case in the gun control issue. The antis want nothing less than absolute and total disarmament. They will stop at nothing to acheive this. They have even admitted as much. Remember Diane Feinstein and her quote? "Turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America..." They lie when they claim to be all about 'reasonable restrictions' or similar code words that are used. We are in an all out war and the only prudent course of action is whatever leads to absolute victory. Even one little step in the direction of compromise in an attempt to be reasonable, is one step closer to defeat and loss of Second Amendment rights.

tygerpaw
02-21-2006, 1:59 PM
Listen to all you guys talking about 'sensible compromises' and such. What a load of crap! To have a compromise, both parties have to be honest. To honor or live up to the particular points of a compromise requires the parties involved to be honest in their motives. As we all know, that is clearly not the case in the gun control issue. The antis want nothing less than absolute and total disarmament. They will stop at nothing to acheive this. They have even admitted as much. Remember Diane Feinstein and her quote? "Turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America..." They lie when they claim to be all about 'reasonable restrictions' or similar code words that are used. We are in an all out war and the only prudent course of action is whatever leads to absolute victory. Even one little step in the direction of compromise in an attempt to be reasonable, is one step closer to defeat and loss of Second Amendment rights.

I agree with you, but the fact is that what we have now totally sucks. If there has to be a restriction, let it be on high cap mags. Here we have all these people chomping at the bit for our new lowers to be BANNED. I think my compromise approach makes more sense, even if it has a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening. I would like to be able to have the evil features too, but I would prefer not to have to register them and then upon my death, my sons (both little kids) cant have them. This registration surely results in confiscation - At least denial of property rights. I'm not saying I wont register when they get banned, just that if I could choose between a fixed mag rifle that is mine forever, and a detachable mag rifle that my family has to surrender upon my death, I would rather load 'er from the top!

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 2:14 PM
Compromise requires that both sides have a reason to sit down at the table and negotiate. The anti-gun crowd has NO reason to sit down at the table because THEY HAVE THE STATE! Right now the state of California is controlled at ALL LEVELs by anti-gun politicians. They control the executive, legislative, AND judicial! They have the full power of every state agency and department at their fingertips to take our guns away. And they're doing it at an alarming rate!

The ONLY way we can even get them to consider negotiation and therefore compromise is to take action that would bring the state or its gerrymandered tyrants to their knees politically. Actions like importing 10,000+ off-list recievers 100% lawfully right in front of them while they're powerless to stop us! Actions like working hard and eventually passing an RKBA that would circumvent the state and MAKE them pay attention to the 2nd Amendment.

Folks these are NOT people who can be reasoned or negotiated with. The state of California has been captured by a ruthless fringe socialist political party. They have a clear vision of the society they think is best for us and they have total control of the state and are 100% intent and united on making their vision a reality. Part of that vision includes a comprehensive ban on civilian ownership of firearms.

Hopefully we'll be able to get enough people interested in getting RKBA on the ballot BEFORE the legislature bans individual ownership of firearms and our guns are confiscated. Keep your eyes peeled because a full and complete ban on semi-auto handguns is next.

Stanze
02-21-2006, 2:22 PM
My idea of comprimise is contributing to the dismisal 52 members of Congress in 1994, taking out, Gore, Kerry, Davis and soon to be ex-Governator in the ballot booth.

I only wish the damage wasn't already done.:(

grammaton76
02-21-2006, 2:35 PM
Folks these are NOT people who can be reasoned or negotiated with. The state of California has been captured by a ruthless fringe socialist political party. They have a clear vision of the society they think is best for us and they have total control of the state and are 100% intent and united on making their vision a reality. Part of that vision includes a comprehensive ban on civilian ownership of firearms.

I agree with ALMOST every word you wrote up there, Shopkeep. However, the one point where I disagree is the part where they think it's best for us. They know it's not best for us, and frankly they prefer it that way - the only people they DO think it's best for, is themselves.

tygerpaw
02-21-2006, 3:43 PM
I dont disagree with you guys at all. I guess I was thinking that somehow we could use this Lower receiver issue to bring them to the table, to show how confusing the whole law is and possibly exchange it for something that would at least make a little sense. I know it's a stretch....., but just a thought. The lower thing just demonstrates how ineffectual their law is.

gmcem50
02-21-2006, 3:54 PM
I dont disagree with you guys at all. I guess I was thinking that somehow we could use this Lower receiver issue to bring them to the table, to show how confusing the whole law is and possibly exchange it for something that would at least make a little sense. I know it's a stretch....., but just a thought. The lower thing just demonstrates how ineffectual their law is.

You are assuming they care if the law is confusing or not, or that they would come to the table with an honest desire to clarify it. I believe it was written that way on purpose to discourage gun ownership and to create endless loopholes and possibilities for prosecution/harrassment. Call me cynical, but that is how it looks to me. Not one of the 20,000 or so idiotic gun gontrol laws passed has ever made anyone any safer or prevented a crime. We know this and I have a hunch a sizable percentage of the antis know this as well. THEY DON'T CARE. It is not now, nor has it ever been about public safety or any of the other inane reasons given for passing more laws. It is about disarming the public. PERIOD.

vrylak
02-21-2006, 4:27 PM
the bad thing about banning firearms altogether is that are freedom is in jepoardy. basically the government can control the people because they have the fire power.

That's exactly the reason why the 2nd Amend is in our constitution, the founding fathers were afraid of a government that will become all, too, powerful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shopkeep
Folks these are NOT people who can be reasoned or negotiated with. The state of California has been captured by a ruthless fringe socialist political party. They have a clear vision of the society they think is best for us and they have total control of the state and are 100% intent and united on making their vision a reality. Part of that vision includes a comprehensive ban on civilian ownership of firearms.


Reminds me of that Stallone movie: Demolition Man. Everybody should remember the megacity of "San Angeles". No weapons of any kind, except of course the underground inhabitants.


Seriously, criminals are better armed than the citizens (if the citizen is armed at all.

Charliegone
02-21-2006, 6:19 PM
I dont disagree with you guys at all. I guess I was thinking that somehow we could use this Lower receiver issue to bring them to the table, to show how confusing the whole law is and possibly exchange it for something that would at least make a little sense. I know it's a stretch....., but just a thought. The lower thing just demonstrates how ineffectual their law is.

This deserves a big long
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

You might have a good point here. Really, the leaders in the Senate and in the Legislature will defintely be interested in this. We can make them look really bad and stupid with all what is happening. Either they take it in the gut and be quiet about it or make a big fiasco about it. Especially now, with a strong Republican leadership at the federal level. Support man we need it!

tygerpaw
02-21-2006, 6:28 PM
Especially if you found a pro-gun media type (would be difficult, I know) if we could manipulate this in the media to our advantage. Would be risky, I'm not the plotting type, but it has potential.