House Dems pushing SemiAutomatic Weapons ban.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • squidvt

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 15, 2012
    750
    28
    Southport, IN
    The house is pushing a bill though the Judiciary Sub Committee. This thing is Nasty - Safe Storage requirements, standard capacity mag ban, AR pistol ban.


    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/ - Link to the bill.
     
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 9, 2022
    2,173
    113
    Bloomington
    In addition to the usual abject nonsense, I am particularly confused, in this case, by the strategy of banning certain models. Can't manufacturers just make a slight update to the design, change the name, and boom, it's legal again? Is there any source that expounds on this point in an understandable way?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,937
    113
    Avon
    The house is pushing a bill though the Judiciary Sub Committee. This thing is Nasty - Safe Storage requirements, standard capacity mag ban, AR pistol ban.


    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/ - Link to the bill.
    [Laughs in Bruen Decision]

    Bring it on, Dems. November is going to be fun.
     

    rosejm

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 28, 2013
    1,775
    129
    NWI
    This is the "We didn't lie to you! We tried to pass a bill like we promised we would."

    Very similar to the AWB of the '90s but with some twists (all AK/AR types - pistol or rifle, any SA rifle with a barrel shroud, thumbhole stocks = pistol grips)
    Seems to limit manufacture & sale of new. Existing grandfathered, but transfer requires 4473 even for private sales.

    No way this gains enough support, or passes judicial scrutiny.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,631
    149
    I would just like to know who comes up with a list of specific makes and models and what criteria they use to put them on the list. Is it the ATF? All of these congress critters don't have a flipping clue what any of these specific firearms are.

    So, is a non-legislative agency participating in legislating? I would say so. That is the ATF's M.O.
     

    Vodnik4

    Aspiring Redneck
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 24, 2021
    330
    93
    Monroe
    I would just like to know who comes up with a list of specific makes and models and what criteria they use to put them on the list. Is it the ATF? All of these congress critters don't have a flipping clue what any of these specific firearms are.

    They had this list in one of the states I used to live in. It was absolutely dumbfoundedly stupid and non-sensical. S&W M+P was banned by name, but Ruger 556 was cash-and-carry. Etc.
    The rumor was that the list was copied from CA list, without a thought or consultation with someone who actually shot a firearm.

    It doesn’t have to make sense, it has to make proggies feel good. That’s all it is.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: KG1

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,631
    149
    They had this list in one of the states I used to live in. It was absolutely dumbfoundedly stupid and non-sensical. S&W M+P was banned by name, but Ruger 556 was cash-and-carry. Etc.
    The rumor was that the list was copied from CA list, without a thought or consultation with someone who actually shot a firearm.

    It doesn’t have to make sense, it has to make proggies feel good. That’s all it is.
    Banning particular semi-automatics by name and not others is absurd because they all function the same. They are all semi-automatic. An M&P15 and a Ruger 5.56 function the same. Semi-automatic action magazine fed rifles and handguns have been widely in common use for lawful purposes for a long time.

    Firearms such as semi-automatics that are "commonly widely in use for lawful purposes" pass that Constitutional standard and that's why it is wholly unconstitutional to ban any of them.
     
    Last edited:

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    It will never get past Senate filibuster. Nor would it withstand SCOTUS review in the wake of NYSPRA v Bruen. This is yet more Kabuki Theater to force opponents to vote against it so they can use it to denigrate them as Gun Loving Nuts who Pray for and Worship Massacres.

    John
     
    Top Bottom