In Preperation of the BAN.

[arnisandyz]

I fully expect the Democratic Party to be in office come election time. As you guys probably know, history has shown most are anti-gun are for the most part the ones who come up with all of the regulations and bans concerning firearms available to US citizens. I hope it doesn't happen, but I expect to see regulations similar to California probably targeting Hi-Capacity Assault Rifles (AR, AK, HK, etc) and probably another 10 round limit on handguns (remember Clinton?)

I'm putting this out for those who are new to firearms and probably are not aware of previous bans. Those of you who have been around for a while can back me up. I'm telling all of my friends that if they have any intention of wanting to own one of these types of weapons GET IT SOON. In addition, accessories like Hi-cap magazines will sell at a premium as no more will be made after the BAN. Telescopic or folding stocks, flashhiders, etc. may also be affected.

I hope I'm wrong, but history tends to repeat itself. If a ban never comes at least it was a good excuse to buy some guns!

 

[RoninPimp]

Why do you say this? Have any politicians hinted at this?

 

[lenatoi]

Yikes! I didn't think about that. Sadly I don't have the $ to get ready for the, GULP, impending ban. :xtrmshock

 

[arnisandyz]

History. Do some research on the Democratic party and thier views towards gun control. I believe the Democratic Party will be in office mostly because the way Bush has been running things. People are generally unhappy about the war situation, rising gas prices, etc. its a political cycle.

Here's a starter...

"The Democratic Party has introduced various measures of gun control over the last 100 years. Most notable of these is the National Firearms Act of 1934 (signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt), the 1939 Gun Control Act (also signed into law by FDR), the 1968 Gun Control Act (introduced by Sen. Dodd and endorsed by Sen. Edward Kennedy), the Brady Bill of 1993 (signed by President Bill Clinton), and the Crime Control Act of 1994 (also signed by Clinton)."

 

[RoninPimp]

I'm sure there are plenty of Dems that would love to repeat some history, but they've got bigger fish to fry at the moment.

 

[arnisandyz]

I'm sure there are plenty of Dems that would love to repeat some history, but they've got bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Unfortunately one of "fish to fry" is National Security. As odd as it seems, some politicians may feel that regulating firearms to US citizens will reduce terrorism and in effect make the Nation more secure. Sad but true.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm sure there are plenty of Dems that would love to repeat some history, but they've got bigger fish to fry at the moment.

I agree, and in fact, I think that the dems are turning against gun control. There are more and more people like me out there, very socially liberal, but strong protectors of the 2nd amendment. So, if I have anything to say about it...

 

[arnisandyz]

Believe me, I hope you guys are right...but it really wouldn't hurt to have an extra AK47 (or whatever) just in case while you can get it. If there IS a Ban it might be while before you'll be able to get one if ever or you'll have to settle for a neutered one. I'm still "relatively young" and I can remember the 10 round limit (had a Glock 17 with a bunch of hicaps to hold me over), regulations on pistol grips on rifles and shotguns, folding stocks, flashhider no-nos, current bans on importation of "kit" guns. did I miss any? I really don't think things will get any better.

Take a look at California...

What are AK and AR-15 series weapons and how are they controlled?

Any firearm which is a variation, with minor differences, of the AK or AR-15 type (i.e., series weapon), regardless of manufacturer, is an assault weapon under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)

How is the 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) affected by the Kasler v. Lockyer decision?

The 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) identified assault weapons by specific characteristics. Those weapons so defined must have been lawfully possessed on or before December 31, 1999 and registered on or before December 31, 2000. Penal Code section 12276, subdivisions (e) and (f), reaffirmed by the Kasler v. Lockyer decision, make AK and AR-15 series weapons unlawful for sale after August 16, 2000, even if their assault weapon characteristics are removed. Persons owning these weapons on this date were required to register them with the DOJ on or before January 23, 2001.

 

[RoninPimp]

Unfortunately one of "fish to fry" is National Security. As odd as it seems, some politicians may feel that regulating firearms to US citizens will reduce terrorism and in effect make the Nation more secure. Sad but true.

-I worry about this too. A pro-gun control prez and a still in effect Patriot Act is scary to think about...

 

[Lisa]

You guys going to turn into Canada?

 

[SFC JeffJ]

You guys going to turn into Canada?

Take off!! No way, eh?

Seriously though, if they enact something akin to the assault weapons ban/hi cap magazine ban, that would be bad. What I'm afraid of though is Federal licensing. Historicaly, that has always been what happens before the government comes to take whatever you have. Many democrats, and a few republicans have voiced thier support of such licensing. But I don't think it will happen after the next elections. The anti gun politicians and lobbyists seem to have taken a more Fabian approach to the matter as of late. So not tomorrow, but within the next twenty to fifty years if we let them.

Jeff

 

[Cruentus]

I agree, and in fact, I think that the dems are turning against gun control. There are more and more people like me out there, very socially liberal, but strong protectors of the 2nd amendment. So, if I have anything to say about it...

The growing trend right now seems to be a decline in gun regulation, regardless of party affiliation. Here in Michigan we have a democratic governer as well as many democratic legislators, yet due to advocacy groups like GLSDA, we are getting rid of gun regulation and making things better for the law abiding citizen to defend himself.

My suggestion is that you get involved in a gun/self-defense advocacy group and send the message to legislators in your state that many constituents will not tolerate unreasonable regulation on firearms or self-defense. If you send this message, they will listen, regardless of party affiliation.

This issue should cross all party lines, in my opinion.

 

[Marvin]

History. Do some research on the Democratic party and thier views towards gun control. I believe the Democratic Party will be in office mostly because the way Bush has been running things. People are generally unhappy about the war situation, rising gas prices, etc. its a political cycle.



Here's a starter...



"The Democratic Party has introduced various measures of gun control over the last 100 years. Most notable of these is the National Firearms Act of 1934 (signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt), the 1939 Gun Control Act (also signed into law by FDR), the 1968 Gun Control Act (introduced by Sen. Dodd and endorsed by Sen. Edward Kennedy), the Brady Bill of 1993 (signed by President Bill Clinton), and the Crime Control Act of 1994 (also signed by Clinton)."

Let us not forget that G. Bush Sr. signed into law the biggest ban of guns ever. And that G.W.Bush was in favor of extending the "Assult Weapons" ban.

 

[Carol]

You guys going to turn into Canada?

What do you mean "turn into"? We're stricter than you are over here in the People's Republic.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

What do you mean "turn into"? We're stricter than you are over here in the People's Republic.

Ain't THAT the truth. Massachusetts will likely *NEVER* be a gun friendly state by this point.

Only thing you can do is get an active membership in whatever pro firearms associations you can, keep abreast of goings on in your legislature, and fight them if you care. *shrug*.

 

[arnisandyz]

This is one case when I really hate to say "I TOLD YOU SO." Hopefully everyone listed to me and is fully stocked on thier "Assault Weapon" needs.

READ BELOW, Its in committee NOW to bring back the 94 BAN AND even stiffer regulations. Please contact your local Representative and help FIGHT this BAN and support our 2nd Ammendment Rights!!!! Believe me now?

http://www.topglock.com/catalog/actionalert0207.htm

 

[LawDog]

In our good ole Republic of M***achusetts there are already restrictions on hi cap. mags, flash suppressors etc. etc. In our Republic there is a permit for both handguns and hi cap firearms, it is called a "license to carry". This license has different levels, A, B, C. An A level is for the hi cap. type firearm, it is usually issued to law enforcement and security personel only. The B class license is for possession of the under 10 round firearm.
Anyone who owned a hi cap. firearm prior to these new regulations and the new license were "grandfathered in" and allowed to keep their hi cap weapons. However, you may not re-sell them to another person. This is how the Republic plans of getting, for good, rid of hi cap. firearms for civilian use.
I have two vaults full of assorted pre banners. :jediduel:

 

[grydth]

Which means soon they will designate you an "Arsenal" and levy a fee of $100 per gun or so...... proceeds to be used "for the children"

 

[evenflow1121]

I am not particularly sure the federal congress could if they wanted to, ban all guns that is I thought that was a state issue, with each state determining as to whether it should ban fire arms. Though banning non traditional fire arms, I am sure they can, however, as to the part where the Attorney General gets to decide which weapons are considered assault and which are not I am not too certain he or she depending on the case has the power to do so, for doing so would mean that the attorney general is writing up legislation. I dont know I get caught up in these things too much. I am sure that the pundits in my party can try, but I would think it be unconstitutional.

 

[flashlock]

I'm from Michigan, one of the most beautiful States to hunt in (many hunters come from all over the world to hunt there). My father has a large arsenal of guns, including Glocks and Chinese AK47s.

I've almost been shot twice. Once by a cousin who was fooling around with a loaded rifle, and once by my brother who accidentally pulled the trigger while we were tromping through the woods (this was a few days after hunter's safty courses).

Since those days, I have moved to Melbourne, Australia. No one is allowed to have guns except police and farmers who own so much land, you could not walk across their properties if you had three days to spare (for the dingos).

I've never felt safer! I moved from S. Chicago to Melbourne, and you can walk out at night and not fear that you could get shot. It is INSANE that we allow so many people to have guns in the United States. The Democratic party will not ban all guns, but I sure wish they did. It's complete madness. Our country would be so much safer without them. Wake up!