Senate Democrats Introduce Assault Weapons Ban of 2019

john-crump
#21
5 Likes

#22

‘Feed strips and similar devices’ (clips) are defined as removable magazines. This means the revolvers that use moon clips would legally be considered to be firearms that use removable magazines.

‘Barrel shroud’ is defined in a way that would include the furniture on a Winchester model 94.

Target stocks with an adjustment for Length Of Pull can be considered to be collapsible stocks.

Stocks that were created to comply with California’s assault weapon ban, will be banned.

The definition of ‘pistol grip’ is so vague that a Hawken muzzleloader can be considered to have a pistol grip stock.

At least a few models currently covered by the NFA are listed as specifically banned.

Mini-14 is on both lists, but the distinction is that it’s banned if it has a folding stock or pistol grip stock (see above comment on definition of pistol grip).

SKS is on both lists, but the distinction is that it’s banned if it does not have a fixed 10 round magazine. I have a fixed 5 round magazine for mine (makes the magazine flush with the stock), so it would be illegal for me to swap that with the fixed 10 round magazine that is currently installed on it. Converting it to a removable magazine is as simple as stripping it for cleaning, then putting it back together without the ‘fixed’ magazine, so I imagine at some point in the future they will revise the ban to include all SKS rifles.

It has a few tweaks, but is essentially what Feinstein has introduced in the past.

4 Likes

#23

Contact your Senators.
We must be vigilant or else some POS like this can get through.
Remember there are 100 Senators.
45 Democrats and 53 Republicans with 2 Independents.
One of those Independents is Berny Sanders so there is a lost cause right off the bat.

4 Likes

#24

Are youy kidding me? Any republican (really anyone period) that votes for this needs to be immediately outed as a traitor and voted out next cycle. This has to stop.

Any idea if this one is also 10 years? It better have an expiration date. Either way, I ain’t givin up shit. Don’t care.

4 Likes

#25

I didn’t look for an expiration date on the current bill, but I haven’t seen an expiration date on any of the awb bills Feinstein has introduced since 2004.

As I recall, the 10 year expiration on the 1994 ban was a compromise that was made in order to get a few more votes. The 1994 ban didn’t do anything (other than ban some guns and magazines) that the supporters claimed it would do.

After 10 years of the 1994 ban with no positive results, the supporters argued that a) it wasn’t in place long enough to show results, and b) manufacturers abused loopholes by making minor cosmetic changes (like leaving off the muzzle threads) and continuing to sell essentially the same guns. This is why they have argued that a new ban cannot have an expiration date (give it time to work), and that it must be more extensive than the 1994 ban (prevent manufacturers from continuing to sell guns by removing banned features).

2 Likes

#26

I read the bill shown by @Robert, word for word, that’s alot of BS, no wonder they have large staffs to parse and proofread the hellish proposal. They have just added to the same bill from 2017, to include “bump” stocks and other stuff since 2017. It is still proposed garbage.

4 Likes

#27

There’s actually a reason they write stuff that way.

Years ago (late 1990s, maybe), there was a bill that would require everyone to declare each of their handguns on the IRS tax return for the following year, and pay a onetime $50 tax for each handgun (and a new $50 tax each time you bought a handgun). The NRA made some noise about it being a registration scheme and trying to make guns too expensive to own, by increasing taxes on guns.

The bill did not pass, which was very fortunate, as the NRA either completely missed what the bill actually was, or didn’t bother to mention what the bill actually did.

Buried in the mess of ‘amend line such and such of title this and that of the US tax code, by adding…’ was a clause that added handguns to the 1934 NFA. The bit about declaring each handgun on your next tax return and paying a onetime $50 tax per handgun, was simply the method they chose to use for handling the problem of how to get all the existing handguns into the NFA registry.

If the bill had passed, that little bit of ‘amend line such and such’ that would have likely slipped by everyone’s notice, would have resulted in handgun purchases being just as big a hassle as the current process for buying suppressors.

5 Likes