Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: A bill that would ban 80% of all guns.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    a
    Posts
    52

    Exclamation A bill that would ban 80% of all guns.

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

    http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/ind...55&itemid=1719

    Any gun that holds 10 or more rounds would be banned from ownership.
    That means my CZ82 would be banned, which it holds 12 rounds! My 22 rifle would be banned it holds 15, My shotgun would be banned..... 80% or more guns in the USA would be banned............

    We need to vote these people out!
    the following 42 House members are original co-sponsors of the bill as of the afternoon of Jan. 18:

    Rep. Gary Ackerman

    Rep. Robert Brady

    Rep. Steve Cohen

    Rep. Judy Chu

    Rep. David Cicilline

    Rep. William Lacy Clay

    Rep. Gerald Connolly

    Rep. John Conyers

    Rep. Donna Edwards

    Rep. Keith Ellison

    Rep. Anna Eshoo

    Rep. Sam Farr

    Rep. Jane Harman

    Rep. Alcee Hastings

    Rep. Jim Himes

    Rep. Mazie Hirono

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen

    Rep. Rush Holt

    Rep. Mike Honda

    Rep. Steve Israel

    Rep. James Langevin

    Rep. Nita Lowey

    Rep. Carolyn Maloney

    Rep. Doris Matsui

    Rep. Betty McCollum

    Rep. Jim McGovern

    Rep. Gregory Meeks

    Rep. George Miller

    Rep. James Moran

    Rep. Jerrold Nadler

    Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton

    Rep. Bill Pascrell

    Rep. Chellie Pingree

    Rep. Mike Quigley

    Rep. Jose Serrano

    Rep. Brad Sherman

    Rep. Jackie Spear

    Rep. Louise Slaughter

    Rep. John Yarmuth

    Rep. Henry Waxman

    Rep. Maxine Waters

    Rep. Anthony Weiner
    Last edited by lowlux; 01-20-2011 at 02:12 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    I agree they need to be voted out, but I doubt this will go anywhere.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by cabbitone View Post
    I may just be missing something. But from my reading it would only ban the magazine not the firearm itself.... Unless the firearm held the rounds not the device in which case I'd be unsure if it'd cover it or not.
    A magazine is not necessarily removable. Many firearms have fixed magazines of a capacity greater than 10 rounds. I don't see how they would not be covered by this bill.

    The bill exempts firearms/magazines possessed before its enactment, buying and selling anything manufactured before passage would not be prohibited. But you can bet the onus of proving date of manufacture would not be on the govt.

    Bad bill, serves no purpose other than to boost the sponsor's anti-gun creds. Needs to be killed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    I agree they need to be voted out, but I doubt this will go anywhere.
    We also thought that health care nightmare was going no where too,
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    and OF COURSE this piece of garbage legislation would "exempt" law enforcement whether on or off duty...

    this is ridiculous.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    a
    Posts
    52
    what we need to job is vote these nut jobs out, get everyone you know to vote these nazis out!

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by architect View Post
    Bad bill, serves no purpose other than to boost the sponsor's anti-gun creds. Needs to be killed.
    Will you please watch your vitriolic speech? How dare you?

    [sarcasm off]
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    The only ones who can vote these people out are the people residing in the states they represent. Highly unlikely since most of them were just voted in last year during last year's election. The Republicans have a majority in the House so this bill is most likely going nowhere. I think it's nothing more than political posturing to look good for their constituents.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Will you please watch your vitriolic speech? How dare you?

    [sarcasm off]
    How about this, then? Needs to be thoroughly slaughtered and burned.

    This is just another bite out of freedom and rights.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by lowlux View Post
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.308:

    http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/ind...55&itemid=1719

    Any gun that holds 10 or more rounds would be banned from ownership.
    That means my CZ82 would be banned, which it holds 12 rounds! My 22 rifle would be banned it holds 15, My shotgun would be banned..... 80% or more guns in the USA would be banned............
    Of course, they're assuming that everyone will comply if they want us to give up our weapons.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    Would probably go the same as the current FFL rules for "Class 3" weapons.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    255 members of the House are A or A+ rated by NRA. Including the chairman of the committee this has to go through. A non-starter typical ******* liberal show piece.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by lowlux View Post
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.308:

    http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/ind...55&itemid=1719

    Any gun that holds 10 or more rounds would be banned from ownership.
    That means my CZ82 would be banned, which it holds 12 rounds! My 22 rifle would be banned it holds 15, My shotgun would be banned..... 80% or more guns in the USA would be banned............

    We need to vote these people out!
    the following 42 House members are original co-sponsors of the bill as of the afternoon of Jan. 18:

    Rep. Gary Ackerman

    Rep. Robert Brady

    Rep. Steve Cohen

    Rep. Judy Chu

    Rep. David Cicilline

    Rep. William Lacy Clay

    Rep. Gerald Connolly

    Rep. John Conyers

    Rep. Donna Edwards

    Rep. Keith Ellison

    Rep. Anna Eshoo

    Rep. Sam Farr

    Rep. Jane Harman

    Rep. Alcee Hastings

    Rep. Jim Himes

    Rep. Mazie Hirono

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen

    Rep. Rush Holt

    Rep. Mike Honda

    Rep. Steve Israel

    Rep. James Langevin

    Rep. Nita Lowey

    Rep. Carolyn Maloney

    Rep. Doris Matsui

    Rep. Betty McCollum

    Rep. Jim McGovern

    Rep. Gregory Meeks

    Rep. George Miller

    Rep. James Moran

    Rep. Jerrold Nadler

    Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton

    Rep. Bill Pascrell

    Rep. Chellie Pingree

    Rep. Mike Quigley

    Rep. Jose Serrano

    Rep. Brad Sherman

    Rep. Jackie Spear

    Rep. Louise Slaughter

    Rep. John Yarmuth

    Rep. Henry Waxman

    Rep. Maxine Waters

    Rep. Anthony Weiner
    Add Obooba, schumer, Hanoi John kerry, the Kalifornia senate scanks, biden and the Arkansas sow and this could be a list of the biggest ****** in Washington. I apologize to any I left off the list. Just go down the democrap listings and they're easy enough to add.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I already emailed my rep about this, telling her I wanted her to speak & vote against the bill.
    I don't expect her to, but I've tried.

    30) The term "large capacity ammunition feeding device"
    (A) means a magazine... that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition
    So my Glock 9mm would be suspect, and RAS for a stop & search to make sure that my magazines weren't dated after the ban. (Part of the bill says that manufacturers would have to date stamp or serial # everything made post-ban.) The lowest capacity Glock 9mm magazine made (AFAIK) is a 10-round, which is easily converted to 12 with a +2 baseplate.

    Quote Originally Posted by architect
    ...you can bet the onus of proving date of manufacture would not be on the govt.
    See above - the bill requires the manufacturers to date stamp their post-ban goods.

    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu
    and OF COURSE this piece of garbage legislation would "exempt" law enforcement whether on or off duty.
    I didn't see that in there.
    The only LEO exemption it includes is one for retired LEOs who are otherwise allowed to posess guns & ammo, then it's OK for them to have post-ban-manufactured "high-capacity" magazines.
    A slip? Wanna bet that if it doesn't die in committee an exemption for on-duty LEOs is added?

    Or is the provision allowing posession (but not transfer) of pre-ban goods good enough to cover LEOs at work? Wonder how that would work... probably the magazines are owned by the department, & lent to officers on duty. Would that be considered transfer?
    Last edited by MKEgal; 01-24-2011 at 08:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140
    Eh, while I disagree with the bill, the bill does not ban those guns. It bans the standard aka "high cap" versions of the magazines, not the gun. Whatever stupid radio-show or website you got this from obviously can't read the actual bill. Stop drinking the cool-aid.

    Again, the bill really damn stupid, but the solution incase its passed (which it will not be) is to get a 10rd magazine.

    You can't vote those people out, they aren't in districts that give a **** about guns.
    Last edited by Pace; 01-25-2011 at 10:20 AM.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    And naturally, the government isn't going to shell out $100 for me to replace my current magazines with substandard ones...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •