Forums

Forum Menu
› ›

Proposed 'Gun Ban List' (unverified)

bullsi1911bullsi1911 ModeratorPosts: 9,731 Senior Member
in Second Amendment/Politics #1
I make no claim of the veracity of this information, but it is starting to make the rounds on the gun boards and blogs:

http://americannationalmilitia.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out/

IF true (big IF with unverified info), it seems they learned from the '94 gun ban by adding the "or copies or duplicates" qualifier.
To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
«1

Replies

  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,230 Senior Member
    #2
    I think that is the list recycled from that old SB 1022. That whole "sporting purpose" thing would get blown out of the water by the McDonald case as HD and SD (non-sporting purpose) has been reaffirmed by the Supremes. The times have changed a bit. Yesterday's "assault rifle" is now today's "modern sporting arm". Let us not forget all the recreational "zombie" shooters that weren't around in 1994.

    While I am far from complacent, I think they will have one heck of a time getting one passed this time around. These idiots can't even pass a budget. I am not ready to get upset over a proposed AWB just yet.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    #3
    Thanks bullsi1911,for the update/information. I am going to proceed on the assumption that it is true, the anti-gunners in Washington,D.C., just haven't tackled this one yet. Budget has the headlines now. According to the link that a lot of guns. I know we haven't heard the last of anti-gun issue in this country. Heck just recently H. Clinton signed that UN world wide gun ban issue.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    #4
    How is a gun already banned from import and illegal to own if you don't have papers (Striker 12) on a list of guns to ban?
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    #5
    SirGeorgeKillian wrote: »
    How is a gun already banned from import and illegal to own if you don't have papers (Striker 12) on a list of guns to ban?

    Somebody might make one similar and call it an Urban Street Sanitation Device, and they will ban it under the catchall category. By naming the Striker 12 specifically, it automatically excludes firearms of same or similar design.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    #6
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    IF true (big IF with unverified info), it seems they learned from the '94 gun ban by adding the "or copies or duplicates" qualifier.

    What happened back then to warrant this clause? (i was barely a teenager when that went down)
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    #7
    Buffco wrote: »
    What happened back then to warrant this clause? (i was barely a teenager when that went down)

    Colt renamed their AR 15 rifles the Colt Sporter and Colt Sporter HBAR. I have both. :tooth:
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 6,244 Senior Member
    #8
    tennmike wrote: »
    Colt renamed their AR 15 rifles the Colt Sporter and Colt Sporter HBAR. I have both. :tooth:

    I love workaround solutions.

    So, what's yall's gut feeling? I'm thinking this is bogus. Obama has too much crap on his plate to even consider gun bans. And the Dems in Congress aren't that stupid.

    But damn. That's a pretty ambitious list. I have the very first one, the M1 carbine. And after my last range visit, I have officially decided it is the most fun gun I own.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    #9
    Buffy, don't think they'll be startin' no stuff with gun bans this year or next. Budget and jobs are going to be kicking their sixes for a while. And if they DO start some stuff about gun control they have to remember the midterm elections in 2014. The midterms kicked ol' Wild Bill in the groin after his gun control dabbling. I think they'd like to, but like their cushy jobs and perks more.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,075 Senior Member
    #10
    While I would put nothing past the current occupant of the white house and his administration, (I mean he DID say he wanted to look into an AWB) but I think this particular "the sky is falling" BS is exactly that. At any rate...you have nothing to worry about if you already own the firearm....they aren't prepared to come after the one already in folks hands....it's the guns you might want to buy that are affected.
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • snake284-1snake284-1 Senior Member Posts: 2,500 Senior Member
    #11
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I think that is the list recycled from that old SB 1022. That whole "sporting purpose" thing would get blown out of the water by the McDonald case as HD and SD (non-sporting purpose) has been reaffirmed by the Supremes. The times have changed a bit. Yesterday's "assault rifle" is now today's "modern sporting arm". Let us not forget all the recreational "zombie" shooters that weren't around in 1994.

    While I am far from complacent, I think they will have one heck of a time getting one passed this time around. These idiots can't even pass a budget. I am not ready to get upset over a proposed AWB just yet.

    I don't think they will even try the assault weapons angle again. I think they'll go for banning it all, maybe through the U.N. Once these people get what they want they won't worry about public opinion and they'll do what they please. Therein lies the real danger to this country.
    I'm Just a Radical Right Wing Nutt Job, Trying to Help Save My Country!
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,075 Senior Member
    #12
    snake284-1 wrote: »
    I think they'll go for banning it all, maybe through the U.N.

    Are you forgetting that the UN Small Arms Treaty has to be ratified by Congress? and that the Congress has already told the President they won't ratify it?
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,115 Senior Member
    #13
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Are you forgetting that the UN Small Arms Treaty has to be ratified by Congress? and that the Congress has already told the President they won't ratify it?
    He'll just get around it by an Executive Order.




















    [tongue firmly in cheek, tinfoil helmet on./]
    Overkill is underrated.
  • roadkingroadking Senior Member Posts: 3,056 Senior Member
    #14
    Well, at least that person has one qualifer...he's a great support to the LGS around here. Salesman of the year maybe?


    Matt
    Support your local Scouts!
  • mkk41mkk41 Banned Posts: 1,932 Senior Member
    #15
    The sky is falling , again! :silly:
    "There are no victims , only volunteers!"
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    #16
    SirGeorgeKillian wrote:
    How is a gun already banned from import and illegal to own if you don't have papers (Striker 12) on a list of guns to ban?
    With no dis-respect to you SirGeoge,if these anti-gun politicians in the USA can find a will, they find a way. Wether or not it makes sense to any of us is yet to been seen!!!!
    tennmike wrote:
    Somebody might make one similar and call it an Urban Street Sanitation Device, and they will ban it under the catchall category. By naming the Striker 12 specifically, it automatically excludes firearms of same or similar design.
    Yea tennmike how many times have us gun owner's seen that tatic before!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:agree:
    Snake284-1 wrote:
    I don't think they will even try the assault weapons angle again. I think they'll go for banning it all, maybe through the U.N. Once these people get what they want they won't worry about public opinion and they'll do what they please. Therein lies the real danger to this country
    :agree::agree:
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    #17
    mkk41 wrote: »
    The sky is falling , again! :silly:

    I don't know mkk41, the sky maybe falling for sure this time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Originally Posted by snake284-1

    I think they'll go for banning it all, maybe through the U.N.
    Jayhawker wrote:
    Are you forgetting that the UN Small Arms Treaty has to be ratified by Congress? and that the Congress has already told the President they won't ratify it?
    I would not bet on that,nor would I trust any politician at this point. They say one thing, and then do the exact opposite.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    #18
    breamfisher wrote: »
    He'll just get around it by an Executive Order.






















    [tongue firmly in cheek, tinfoil helmet on./]

    :agree:
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    #19
    What some of you young'uns may be unaware of is the 'nuclear option' in the GCA1968 law. You've heard of it, I know, but you may be unaware of the implications of that bit. The 'sporting purpose' clause in GCA1968 allows the BATFE to make rules(laws) that ban the sale and manufacture, or importation, for the civilian market any firearm that is deemed by them to have no 'sporting purpose'. Congress is not needed to implement that. It's already been used to ban importation of lots of firearms. Wouldn't be a big deal for them to decide, with White House prodding, and a lil' help from the usual suspects in Congress, to make such a ruling. I wouldn't be surprised for such shenanigans to come up after the midterm elections, or incrementally adopted over the next four years one firearm type at a time.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    #20
    tennmike wrote: »
    What some of you young'uns may be unaware of is the 'nuclear option' in the GCA1968 law. You've heard of it, I know, but you may be unaware of the implications of that bit. The 'sporting purpose' clause in GCA1968 allows the BATFE to make rules(laws) that ban the sale and manufacture, or importation, for the civilian market any firearm that is deemed by them to have no 'sporting purpose'. Congress is not needed to implement that. It's already been used to ban importation of lots of firearms. Wouldn't be a big deal for them to decide, with White House prodding, and a lil' help from the usual suspects in Congress, to make such a ruling. I wouldn't be surprised for such shenanigans to come up after the midterm elections, or incrementally adopted over the next four years one firearm type at a time.

    I remember when that Law was passed tennmike. In 1968 I was 12yrs young. One other provision I remember in that bill,after it got passed, I could no longer go to the Western Auto and buy my .22 ammo. Mom or Dad had to sign for it at time of sale because I was not 21 years of age. To make a long post short here, a provision/clause in that bill said,in a nut shell if any ammo(.22 for example) can be used for both handgun and rifle, the buyer must be at least 21 and sign for it. IIRC I think I could still buy shotgun ammo and BB's.

    ...Also IIRC tennmike, and correct me, if I am wrong, we witnessed high profile leaders being assisinated in the USA that decade. John Kennedy, Martin L King Jr. the 11yr kid shot down in the streets of Memphis Tenn., during the civil unrest and riots of that time. What I am getting at is this: The American people were told that by passing the GCA of 1968 will reduce these violent/civil outbreaks and make our streets safer and:blah::blah::blah:. Wasn't this the same time period in America where the crack downs on so called " Saturday Night Specials" started?

    The way I see it, (not including the Town ordinance), that Wyatt Earp,imposed about cowboys checking in their guns when they came to town, the GCA of 1968 was to me, the begining of total gun control and total gun ownership ban in the USA. Infant beginings if ya will, so to speak.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    #21
    Robert, too far back for me to remember all the parts of that law, and I'm too lazy to look it up. But if my brain isn't playing a trick on me, ammunition of any type was illegal to sell to anyone under the age of either 18 or 21, too. Ammunition wasn't a problem for me and Dad except for .22LR as I was 'Reloader in Chief' by then. If it was used in a centerfire rifle, shotgun, or pistol it got reloaded by lil' ol' me. What it did for me personally was put a brake on me using money I earned from farm work and raising knotheaded dairy bull calves and selling them at the stock barn and using that money to mail order old WWII surplus rifles and surplus ammunition.

    Saturday Night Special pistols derived their name from a racist term. And it's intent was no different than the laws on pistols passed after the Civil War. Had little to do with crime control. Crime was up, but a lot of the crime was related to the Viet Nam war and protest groups like Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Weathermen. And the Black Panthers were getting some traction back then. And grass(Mary Jane) use was sweeping the country. So was LSD use.

    On assassinations, John F. Kennedy was killed on 11-22-63, Martin Luther King on 4-4-68, and Robert F. Kennedy on 6-6-1968. GCA 1968 was enacted on 10-22-1968. Those last two got the gun control act passed.

    O.K. I told a lie about being too lazy to look it up. Here's a link to how GCA 1968 came about. I suggest that anyone not familiar with this read it. It's sorta kinda long, but has background on the Act and has some statistics to go with it. Easier to talk about a thing if we're all on the same page. :tooth:

    http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/zimring68.htm
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    #22
    Just heard on the news that Obama will use either executive order or the BATFE to reclassify semiauto rifles and large magazines for them as Title 2 firearms with the associated $200 tax stamp and paperwork. If that happens it would be up to Congress to defund the BATFE as that is the only way to circumvent the move. Senate is no help as Harry "Hell NO" Reid would not let it come up on the Senate schedule. Looks like Obama is showing his true colors earlier than expected.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,429 Senior Member
    #23
    6" PVC pipe- - - -Cosmoline- - - -silica gel- - - - -shovel- - - - -problem solved!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • ghostsniper1ghostsniper1 Banned Posts: 2,645 Senior Member
    #24
    Why would our gun manufacturers allow this? I mean, couldn't they say "whoa there, your trying to limit our sales so screw you, we're not supplying your military with our weapons anymore???"
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,115 Senior Member
    #25
    Well, some of the weapons are made by U.S. located plants for FN, Sig, or Beretta, companies whose products are of spotty availability worldwide, and who might not care if they sell to a civilian.
    Others are made by Colt, and they have a lineage of surrendering the commercial market to get the military/LE.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • mkk41mkk41 Banned Posts: 1,932 Senior Member
    #26
    tennmike wrote: »
    Just heard on the news that Obama will use either executive order or the BATFE to reclassify semiauto rifles and large magazines for them as Title 2 firearms with the associated $200 tax stamp and paperwork.

    That's the story being shown on the Comcast home/news page.

    But will current powners be 'grandfathered' without the $200 tax?

    What about currently owned full-autos? I'm hearing that's the next step.

    Since everyone is already registered , confiscation is only a pen-stroke away.
    "There are no victims , only volunteers!"
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,420 Senior Member
    #27
    ghostsniper1 wrote: »
    Why would our gun manufacturers allow this? I mean, couldn't they say "whoa there, your trying to limit our sales so screw you, we're not supplying your military with our weapons anymore???"

    They could, but they wouldn't. Plus, machine guns and M16s are made by FN, handguns by Beretta and Sig. The only "civilian" rifle makers for those types of rifles that supply the military are Remington and Colt, who are bound by contract to meet their quotas.

    I would like to see some info on this supposed executive order. I can't find anything online.
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "It's far easier to start out learning to be precise and then speeding up, than it is having never "mastered" the weapon, and trying to be precise." - Dan C
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    #28
    SS3, the info is just on leaks from the White House staff and others in the administration at the moment. His administration has worse leaks than a ship without any hull covering the frame ribs. Rumors from the usual suspects say that it is/will be in some of the regulations the Big O is churning out of the oval office by executive order. If it's true, I suspect that when it hits the MSM as a fact that there won't be a firearm or round of ammunition to be had on store shelves after 1-1-2013.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • mkk41mkk41 Banned Posts: 1,932 Senior Member
    #29
    Try this.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2005266599001/
    "There are no victims , only volunteers!"
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,104 Senior Member
    #30
    Our government is so ignorant. So, so ignorant. There is so little of the country remaining worth giving two licks about.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • rallykidrallykid Senior Member Posts: 657 Senior Member
    #31
    Teach wrote: »
    6" PVC pipe- - - -Cosmoline- - - -silica gel- - - - -shovel- - - - -problem solved!
    Jerry

    If its time to bury them then it is time to use them as our forefathers intended.
    No, I do not have a pink fuzzy bunny fetish but apparently my Facebook hacking wife does.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

MORE YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Sign Me Up