Think your "traditional" hunting gun is safe from the proposed ban? Think again:

[friendly_iconoclast]

Click the link and see how even Civil-War era guns (and replicas) would be banned under Carolyn Mcarthy's proposed law:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x365869#365923


oneshooter (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-22-11 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. So how would that affect 22 cal tube fed rimfire rifles, Henry Rifles, M66 and M76 rifles? n/t

X_Digger (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-22-11 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. They're excluded..
`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.308:

oneshooter (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-22-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #10

13. That means that the Henry rifle in 44-40 (repo), 44 Henry Flat(original)
would then be illegal. Also the M1866 in 38WCF( 38-40 Winchester), 32WCF(32-20 Winchester), and 25WCF(25-20 Winchester) would also be illegal, as would the M1873, 1892, and all of the repops of these rifles. ALL of them are chambered for centerfire cartridges and have tube magazines holding from 12-15 rounds.

[aquart]

1. Oh, goody! Gun propaganda! More, daddy, more!

And tomorrow after church, let's all do a video Glock testimonial. They look like such fun!

[beevul]

8. Yes, yes.

Ignorance is Power.

War is peace.

Slavery is freedom.

Facts are propaganda.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. There's an awful lot of deer rifles that would be banned by this...

...besides the ones already mentioned. And if you couldn't prove you owned it before the proposed ban took effect, you're

up for a Federal felony rap- good for several years in the Greybar Hotel.

[OhioBlue]

3. so your "source" for your assertions

is anonymous posts on a message board.... I'm not buying.

It brings to my mind NRA propaganda....

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Do you think the NRA "got" to the Library of Congress? Read the bill there if you don't believe me:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:h308:

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Definition- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:

‘(30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’--

‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

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



(b) Prohibitions- Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.


(c) Penalties- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.’.

Denial is big with you lot, isn't it?

[Euromutt]

12. In truth, this wouldn't affect very many rifles

Let's face it, most lever-action, tube magazine-fed, center-fire rifles (be it in .30-30, .357 Mag, .44 Mag, let alone .45-70) don't hold 10 rounds, let alone more. But it should be a wake-up call to the Fudds and Zumbos among us that legislation put forward by someone who is essentially clueless about firearms (which Carolyn "Shoulder thing that goes up" McCarthy is) carries absolutely no guarantee that their walnut 'n' steel hunting guns won't be affected.

[one-eyed fat man]

14. The devil will be in the details.

You are right about the rifle caliber tubular magazine guns, even full length rifles do not hold 10 rounds of .30-30 or .38-55. Some versions, like the Model 1886 Winchester were offered with half magazines, a popular option.

But for the most part the "combination" caliber lever action Winchesters like the Model 1873 and the Model 1892, Pump guns like the Colt "Lightning" or the Remington Model 14-1/2 all had versions which had tubular magazines which held more than ten rounds. Get around old homesteads in the badlands of North Dakota and you discover the farmers were partial to cartridges like .32-20 and .25-35. Cowboys liked a saddle carbine and a belt gun in the same caliber. The concept was so popular Colt engraved "Frontier Six Shooter" on its Army model revolvers chambered in .44-40.

The folks who will be most affected are the "cowboy shooters" since the calibers in question are .44-40, .38-40, .32-20, and similar. Likely the exemption will continue for pre 1898 antiques which are not considered firearms under Federal law, but most shooters are using modern reproductions not family heirlooms. Those guns would appear to be affected by the ban as worded.

[guitar man]

31. Good grief

I own a model 1873 Winchester in 44-40, please don't tell me this crap law is going to affect my 100+ year old rifle... Someone has lost their damn mind :grr:

[one-eyed fat man]

39. The bill's sponsor

Congresswoman Carolyn "Thing that goes up" McCarthy is a New York Democrat who has made a career of anti-gun legislation. Her single-minded clarity of purpose, aka one-trick pony, has never been hampered by technical incompetence, mechanical ineptitude, lack of common sense, or the laws of physics.

Actually, the law very well might. If your Model 1873 Winchester, which was in production from 1873 until 1919, can be proven to have been built before 1898 it is not considered a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

While the magazine capacity would not be a problem, the barrel length of 'trapper' models of some Winchester, Marlin, Remington, etc rifles which were made before 1898 can still be a problem under the National Firearms Act if they have barrels less than 16 inches in length.

So even though the rifle is not a "firearm" under one law because it was made before 1898 it is still a "short-barreled rifle" under another law, regardless of when it was manufactured. The ATF's "Curios and Relics List" is full of individual trapper model antique Winchesters (among others) that the ATF has specifically exempted from the provisions of the NFA by serial number.

[guitar man]

40. IIRC

My rifle was made in 1905, I'm going to look up the S/N when I get back home this weekend to make sure. It's the full length rifle,24" barrel length iirc with 15 round capacity.I bought it in 1985 along with a Colt Frontier SAA also chambered in 44-40 as a set.

I know this legislation doesn't stand much of a chance at all of passing but it is disturbing that we have lawmakers that would want to ban or restrict things that they know absolutely nothing about.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Don't you know that when it comes to guns, "definitions are meaningless"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x367351#367487

[oneshooter]

42. I'm sure that they don't like my ML 14" 12ga double!!! n/t

[oneshooter]

32. Don't forget the collectors that have origional rifles. n/t

[guitar man]

34. Yeah, like me

:(

I don't have the collection I once had after 8 years of Bu$henomics, had to sell some off, but I still have an original Winchester model 1873, I think it was made in 1905 iirc. I have an original Colt SAA in 44-40 also and some nice leather, it's a hell of a set. :)

[Katya Mullethov]

15. Speaking of Jim Zumbo

Anybody seen a cropdusting report or video from '11 SHOT ?

[PavePusher]

21. THR has a lot. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. I certainly hope THR is aware of what oneshooter pointed out re: lever guns

And if not, they are made aware...

[Katya Mullethov]

25. I would suspect Arfcommers first

Being the propeller head that you are , you may not know that crop dusting is a naval term .
I am certain there is an air corps equivalent .
Crop dusting
Verb : To break wind as one passes other crew member(s) in a confined passageway .

[PavePusher]

26. I'm quite familiar with the verbiage...

have been both a practitioner and a victim....

Works best when backed up between the pilot seats of a chopper flying in cold weather with the heat on...

[Katya Mullethov]

27. Yeaaap.........sniff

It's the simple things in life .

[OhioBlue]

30. and speculation is big with you

and NRA propaganda seems to be... be afraid.... they're gonna take yur guns. Instead of working with lawmakers and others to draft sensible legislation.

If legislation comes to the floor it will go through a process - whatever comes out will then have to be enforced and litigated. If you feel there are problems with the bill, then you might make more allies by pointing them out and talking about what needs to be changed rather than demonizing an entire piece of legislation by using fear tactics..

I don't believe for a minute that it is anyone's intention with this bill to ban hunting guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Intentionally or not, this bill would, in fact, ban certain "traditional" hunting rifles.

Not just 'scary' semi-automatic ones, but some of the "suitable for hunters and sportsmen" variety certain Prohibitionist types

claim to find just dandy. That's not my opinion, that is fact, given the language of the bill as posted on the LOC website

and the specifications of those rifles as given by several posters, which are easily researched and confirmed. I urge you

to do just that, and point any errors in regard to those specifications- if you can find any such errors.



And if lawmakers were to draft "sensible" legislation, I would encourage gun owners to help see it passed. That said:


McCarthy's bill is neither sensible nor Constitutional, given settled US Supreme Court precedent, as the weapons

under threat of ban are both "in common use" and not "unusual". Nor are they unusually dangerous, given that all

varieties of rifle are used in less than 3% of firearm crimes.



You are most certainly entitled to your own opinion. You are certainly not entitled to your own facts.

[OhioBlue]

35. well you did make an attempt to articulate your position

so I will give you that..

but your last comment seems combative.. nice soundbite... but totally inappropriate. the ONLY thing in my post that could be interpreted as stating a fact is when I said legislation would go through a process and then have to be enforced and litigated. I'm pretty sure you don't disagree with that.. but I could be wrong.

The problem I see is that gun rights advocates look at a proposal like the one from Congresswoman McCarthy - whose intention is to limit the rounds in a clip in weapons like those used to spray bullets into victims in AZ or in her husband and son's train and automatically demonize it as trying to take away people's hunting guns. If there is language in the proposed legislation that does more than the stated intention, that should be pointed out and the legislation should be changed before it comes to a vote.

Now.... you can still be opposed to the intention of the legislation and oppose it in its final form while at the same time acknowledging the actual stated intention and discussing in a civil manner how to make the proposed legislation's wording match the stated intention. That does not seem to be the way most gun rights advocates view things tho - it comes across as black and white - good and bad and all proposed legislation needs to be demonized - they're gonna take ur guns.

[guitar man]

36. The law's "stated intention"

And the way the law is currently written is miles apart. If the intention truly is to restrict high capacity magazines used to "spray" ( technically incorrect since the Glock he used was semi-auto, not full auto) bullets, then why the hell would it restrict my ability to pass down a lever action hunting rifle to my child? It's absolutely ridiculous.

Would you really favor putting restrictions on tubular magazines in lever action rifles?

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. There's too much disconnect between what it is "supposed" to do *and what it actually says*

I don't see how it is incumbent upon "us" to help improve this dog's breakfast of a bill, since no one has yet demonstrated to

"our" satisfaction that this proposed law is necessary


Since Carolyn McCarthy has been championing gun control in Congress for years (and presumably smart enough to do the research

those here and elsewhere have done)- then why did she present a bill with such broad definitions?

I can only assume that she either did so deliberately, or no one on her staff dares tell her things that she does not want to hear.


Therefore, I feel no need to help her 'fix' it. It's either too badly crafted for its stated purpose, or written just as

McCarthy wanted it to be written. Either way, it's unacceptable.



We've seen this before, remember? The 'scary' weapons (that are used in less than 3% of gun crimes, remember?) get banned.

Rather, I feel it is incumbent upon McCarthy not to propose laws that are overly broad, arguably un-Constitutional, and

which seek to ban firearms that are demonstrably rarely used in crimes (less often than hands and feet, per the FBI)

[one-eyed fat man]

41. Congress has passed inane legislation before.

One particularly noteworthy was the so call Lautenberg Amendment.

That is the law that made ALL past misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, regardless of circumstances disqualifying. It also is the ONLY Federal gun law that did not carve out an exemption for police, military, or government agents on duty. The initial premise was, "Wife-beaters should not be allowed to own guns." however, the fallout has been interesting.

First, even for decades old misdemeanors, the law makes no distinction between a conviction for actual physical violence and a guilty plea for a shouting match that woke up the neighbors who called police. Particularly where a guilty plea and paying the fine were cheaper and more expeditious than going to court.

That type of decision is made under a completely different light now, especially for police officers and members of the military who become immediately unemployable. It is not unknown for a vengeful spouse to make a domestic violence accusation with precisely that goal in mind.

For an infantryman, a Lautenberg conviction is the end of the line, permanent bar to reenlistment, grounds for discharge. For the pilot of a B-2 bomber, not so much. The law does not keep him from being in command of a bomber load of nukes, he just can't have a sidearm.

Proponents of the law, by crafting a law without thinking, hoist on their petard, are unable to make changes without falling prey to their own propaganda and being accused of arming wife-beaters.

[HankyDubs]

4. and again

whether these assertions by oneshooter are true or not, no existing weapons would be banned. That would be unconstitutional. The production of new weapons and the sale of weapons that fall under the ban would be illegal.

Implying that existing weapons would be banned is hyperbolic and also...simply not true.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Factual inaccuracy is still tripping you up, I see.

It doesn't ban "sale of weapons", it bans transfers (which include sales, gifts and bequests from estates)

(b) Prohibitions- Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

‘(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

So millions of guns eminently suitable for hunting, and provably less dangerous than hands and feet as far as killing and

injuring actual, like, people will become contraband when their owners die, all because a zealot is on a Mission From God.

Congratulations, McCarthy and her supporters may just have driven the last of the anti-modern-weapon hunting types into our camp!


I stand by the OP- and I stand by the title of this post.

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. Don't worry!

You will still be able to keep your antique guns. The chances that a bill like this would ever pass are nil. The NRA loves this type of shit though. Nothing like scaring the shit out of gun owners to shake a few million loose.

[DonP]

16. Are you suggesting that the NRA put McCarthy and Lautenberg up to this?

Hey, maybe she's part of that massive gun industry conspiracy gun control people are always telling us about?

The NRA finds really ignorant congress critters and secretly convince them to put up bills that make no sense and threaten the broadest possible group of recreational shooters.

Then the NRA rakes in the new membership dues from Fudds who realize they aren't immune from the stupidity. Pretty craft those NRA Gun guys, huh?

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. IOW "Did the NRA pull a CREEP on the gun controllers?" McGovernize them, so to speak?

I rather doubt it, but it would be sheer Machiavellian genius if they did....

[guitar man]

38. I'm a "walnut and steel" guy

I've got a few lever actions, an M1 Garand, a couple SAA Colts, a couple shotguns and a 1911. The only thing I own that will accept a "high capacity" mag is a Ruger 10-22 I got for Christmas .

But I've always been in your "camp". Why would I be, since I don't really have a "dog in the hunt"?

Because it's not what they are asking for now that concerns me as much as what they will ask for next. Once they clear one hurdle I have a strong feeling they won't stop there. They'll keep at it, demanding more and more...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. False as to fact: California law already bans existing weapons coming into the state

San Francisco's ill fated bans also required weapons be removed or turned in. It was struck down for conflict with state premption legislation not for illegal confiscation. There were also 2 prior attempts by the same city, both of which were declared illegal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Self Deltete - Wrong Place

[DissedByBush]

19. A ban by any other name

Wait one generation, and they're all illegal. It prevents transfers, which means inheritance too.

Aside from that the value of anything is only realized if you can sell it.

If you cannot sell it, the government effectively stripped the value, clearly a taking under the Constitution.

[beevul]

9. I almost feel sorry...

I almost feel sorry for the FUDDS who are sure to get a rude awakening from this, and the people whos names are on the bill as co-sponsors.

Almost.

[Katya Mullethov]

17. The look on John Astor's face

When he overhears the Titanics architect state : "Sir , this ship is constructed entirely of iron , it is a mathematical certainty that it will sink " .
A real monocle popper that was !

[shadowrider]

18. It was actually Isray

"But this ship can't sink"

"She's made of iron sir, and she will. Tis a mathematical certainty".

Not that I've seen the movie or whatnot.

[oneshooter]

13. Strangly enough the M1Garand, a semi-auto BATTLE RIFLE would be ok. n/t

[DonP]

20. I'd expect a "Weapons of War" provision to follow shortly

If they ever got a new AWB with a 10 round limit, they'll figure that 8 rounds and a ping is a serious threat too.

Then we'll start hearing that weapons of war have no place in civilian hands too. Bye, bye Garand, Springfield '03, M1 Carbine, and that Springfield Trap Door looks pretty dangerous too. Not to mention all those Rem 700's that are just civilian "sniper rifles".

No, it stops here and goes no further.

We all keep pushing back, ignore the "sturm und drang" and resist the slippery slope and the media hype with facts, the law and a whole lot of motivated voters..

[DissedByBush]

28. Weapons of War criteria used by other countries

They say civilians can't use it if it is in regular use by the police or military.

That bans pretty much everything.

Seriously, even a Remington 700 hunting rifle would be illegal because a variation of it is used as a sniper rifle.

The Mossberg 5x0 series and Remington 870 are an extremely popular civilian pump shotguns, but would be illegal because the military and police use them extensively too.

[Euromutt]

29. That's often more a question of what cartridge the gun uses than the gun itself

For example, Italy has a ban on private ownership of any firearm in calibers used by the police and armed forces, which means you can't own a handgun in 9x19mm, for example. This law was introduced under Mussolini, primarily to make it difficult for any armed leftists who took it into their heads to revolt to resupply themselves with ammunition stolen from police stations. But you can, for example, legally own a Beretta 92 (even though it's the standard sidearm of the Italian armed forces and quite a few police forces) as long it's not chambered in 9x19mm; IMI specifically designed the 9x21mm round to get around the ban on military/police calibers in countries like Italy and Mexico.

Similarly, you can own a Glock in Mexico, provided it's chambered in .380 ACP/9mm Short. And yes, Glock does make those, though they're not available to private buyers in the U.S. because it doesn't meet the import criteria under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. A lot of the M1s out there *were* used to kill people. But they're OK by McCarthy.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the chances are excellent that a WW2-era Garand was used in battle, either in that conflict or in

Korea, circa 1950-1953.


Those lever-action deer guns (unless they were 19th century US Army issue) probably have only ever been used to put venison or

wild hog on the table. But they are the dangerous "assault weapons", according to the gun Prohibitionists!