Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Proposed banned guns

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2013, 11:51 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 167
Liked 43 Times on 28 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danf_fl
There are some semi-autos that were not mentioned directly.

Don't tell me that Feinstein didn't have a "catch-all" phrase.

(wasn't the M1 Garand used to assault the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima?)
Feinstein did have a catch all provision in there it was the button bullet provision which stated that banned would be any button activated removable bullet feeding device which basically covers any pistol or rifle that is magazine fed regardless of number of rounds.
__________________
4sig is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 11:58 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 167
Liked 43 Times on 28 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior1256
Rest assured, if she succeeds in passing this bill, she will be coming after all semi-auto handguns next.
Her bill already covers all semiautomatic hand guns under the button activated bullet feeding device (magazines) provision
__________________
4sig is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 05:24 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Blackbeard1718's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Texas Hill Country!
Posts: 181
Liked 8 Times on 7 Posts
Likes Given: 16

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jharder0002 View Post

My plan is not to give any firearms up until this is resolved.
MY plan, is not to give any firearms up..... PERIOD!

Cheers!

BB
__________________
Blackbeard

"The Floggings will continue, until Morale improves!"
Blackbeard1718 is offline  
Bigcountry02 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 06:15 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 9
Liked 15 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Obama has already banned ALL guns by executive order and most people don't see it. Explanation: One of the more insidious actions that the government has taken is to start to treat the mere possession of guns as a health issue. The attack is coming on two fronts: 1. By asking the CDC to investigate the "health impact" of gun possession on society, the door is open for the whiny liberals who populate most government health regulatory agencies to create a "presumption" that the mere presence of guns is unhealthy. It will be just like tobacco, cigarettes are perfectly legal and obtainable, but it is becoming more and more difficult to find a place to smoke one. People who do not smoke have been very successful in creating "smoke-free" environments by claiming that they are harmed by "second hand" smoke created by legal smokers. When guns are accepted by the ignorant majority as some kind of a threat to their health just by being in their vicinity, the whiners will start to claim that their "rights" are somehow being infringed by other's possessing them and there will be many more declared "gun-free" zones. 2. The second, and more important problem, is that doctors are being encouraged to ask their patients if there are guns in the household, as if this somehow automatically creates a health hazard for everyone. Once doctors make this information a part of your medical record, the information will be available to insurance companies. Almost immediately, health insurers will try to increase your rates (or not cover you) if you have guns. And liability insurers (homeowners, renters, etc) will be able to deny you coverage if you have guns, at their option. This will happen right after the first shark lawyer figures out that since the possession of guns is now legitimately considered a health issue, he can sue everybody after virtually ANY shooting because "they should have known" that they were creating a dangerous situation by allowing guns to exist on their property. After the first successful lawsuit, we will all be getting letters from our insurers asking us to declare what guns we allow on our premises and if the company doesn't like guns, we will be dropped from coverage. So even though there is no gun ban on the law books, Obama has just opened the door to a situation where insurance costs and legal liability will prohibit anyone from actually owning or using perfectly legal guns. Just like cigarettes.

__________________
Capodosto is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 02:01 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jharder0002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 54
Liked 6 Times on 6 Posts

Default

@blackbeard1718 let me correct myself. Sell/trade anything till this is resolved 😄
Not giving up any gun I own to the federal or state government without a fight.

__________________
jharder0002 is offline  
Blackbeard1718 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 08:38 PM   #16
Ain't she sweet?
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
winds-of-change's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 22,426
Liked 6762 Times on 4086 Posts
Likes Given: 8094

Default

Everyone, please "argue" with facts not with name calling and rudeness.

__________________
Honor Student: School of Hard Knocks
To the world you may be one person, but to one person you may be the world.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritatus
winds-of-change is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 08:59 PM   #17
Kostriker
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Bigcountry02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest
Posts: 6,154
Liked 1778 Times on 1014 Posts
Likes Given: 3562

Default

The federal government elite is declaring itself ROYAL! The out-of-control necon's are passing laws making themselves exempt from every crime under the sun.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 (U.S. Constitution)
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.


More at the link:

http://www.ibtimes.com/government-officials-can-still-own-assault-weapons-under-feinstein-bill-1039506

Not everyone is exempted from owning military-style assault weapons under new legislation [1] proposed by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Weapons used by government officials and law enforcement will not be prohibited by the law proposed by the California Democrat, which would prohibit the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named [2] semi-automatic weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Any weapons legally owned before the bill’s enactment would also be exempt, although those firearms would have to be registered in a national database.

In addition, more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles and manually operated firearms would also be exempt.

The ambitious measure seeks to reinstate and expand the federal ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. While gun control restrictions -- typically extremely unpopular -- have floundered in Congress in recent years, there has been a renewed push for tighter regulations in the wake of last month’s elementary school shootings in Newtown, Conn.

But gun rights activists, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), have vowed to oppose any legislative action that could increase regulations on firearm ownership, claiming it is an undeniable violation of the Second Amendment.

__________________
Bigcountry02 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 09:13 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 9
Liked 15 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Insurance companies currently send out requests for information to their customers which ask a whole series of questions, and you have to sign this form and return it by a deadline or they can cancel your policy. There are no laws which dictate what they can and cannot ask, and all of the information goes into their computer. They refer to this information when you submit a claim. For example, one of the new questions that now appears on virtually every "declaration" form for homeowners liability insurance is to ask if you own any large-breed dogs. If you check "yes", you have to list what specific dogs you own. If you check "no", and then your Pit Bull goes out and bites your neighbor, guess what, no coverage. If the mere possession of guns becomes accepted as a "present danger", then the next version of the form will ask if you own guns, and you will have to list them all on the form, which will then go into the computer. As it is, many people are discouraged from getting big dogs because of the extra insurance expense and liability. Is it a stretch to think that some people may get rid of or not acquire guns for the same reasons? Pit Bulls are perfectly legal, but insurance concerns have effectively "banned" them in certain neighborhoods because it is prohibitively expensive to maintain homeowner's insurance. When someone gets a letter from their insurer telling them that their policy rate will triple if they want to keep their "dangerous" gun, I think many people will give up the gun in order to keep their insurance (and their mortgage, since insurance ir required by mortgage underwriters). All of this is already legal, but up until the recent executive orders, guns have not been treated by the goverment as a health issue, so insurers were probably reluctant to try it.

__________________
Capodosto is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 09:30 PM   #19
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Axxe55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East Texas, Texas!
Posts: 27,398
Liked 20051 Times on 11404 Posts
Likes Given: 50589

Default

Cap, you must live in one of those liberal gun hating states! funny thing is i have homeowners insurance, life insurance and car insurance and have every one of my firearms insured on my homeowners policy. hmmm...funny they really don't seem to care how many dogs or guns i own as long as i pay my premiums.

__________________
Coming From The Village Of The Damned.
Resist All Tyranny And Oppression.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke.
Axxe55 is online now  
wizard63 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 09:41 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 9
Liked 15 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55 View Post
Cap, you must live in one of those liberal gun hating states! funny thing is i have homeowners insurance, life insurance and car insurance and have every one of my firearms insured on my homeowners policy. hmmm...funny they really don't seem to care how many dogs or guns i own as long as i pay my premiums.
"Cap, you must live in one of those liberal gun hating states!"

Yes, I do. Connecticut, the insurance capital. And I can only wish our government leaders were as enlightened and patriotic as those in Texas! I envy the freedoms that Texans enjoy. If you had snow and a nice ocean to sail in, I might move there.
__________________
Capodosto is offline  
winds-of-change Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
proposed legislation in Massachusetts mountainman13 Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 01-20-2013 02:42 PM
open carry of long guns banned mountainman13 California Gun Forum 37 09-06-2012 04:46 AM
Keystone XL-Proposed Oil Pipeline Car54 Politics, Religion and Controversy 2 02-07-2011 02:07 PM
When guns are banned... zhuk The Club House 12 08-12-2010 09:33 AM
RP 98.9% of crimes are committed with illegal guns, More gun control proposed AdAstra2009 Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 05-21-2009 10:06 AM