Assault Weapons Ban

**DPrime** · 23 Dec 08,, 15:21

I don't know, honestly. As a Canadian I don't have any amendments to the Constitution to think about, and I'm not passionate about it either way. However, one thing I don't like about Canadian gun laws is that it restricts me from collecting certain firearms - mainly a German WWII Luger, which would be really cool to have, among other pistols - and to be quite honest I wouldn't mind having a genuine AK or something like that. I don't imagine I'd need to use it for self-defense, but you never know. Mainly I'd like it as part of a small collection.

I guess I lean towards freedom rather than repression in almost any case, so I wouldn't support an outright ban, even on assault weapons. However, I do think that the criteria to own one could be a little tighter. I really do think you need to PROVE that you're a law-abiding citizen, and not only that but MATURE enough to own one. It shouldn't be automatically assumed, even if you don't have a criminal record. I really do think the comparison to vehicle licenses is valid, even if it's not protected in a country's constitution. Not only do you have to be a certain age, but you have to prove that you can do it safely, and for vehicles that are a bit more dangerous (ie: trucks, for example) you've got to prove it again.

Forgive my ignorance of specific US federal and state laws regarding this, I know I'm speaking in generalities. Just my two cents...

**omon** · 23 Dec 08,, 15:25

Originally Posted by DPrime

I really do think you need to PROVE that you're a law-abiding citizen, and not only that but MATURE enough to own one. It shouldn't be automatically assumed, even if you don't have a criminal record....

what else do you consider law abiding citizen?? and how do you prove it????

lol, kinda like saying, we shouldn,t automaticly assume that it is hot outside, even thou thermometer shows 100f.

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 23 Dec 08,, 18:15

Originally Posted by DPrime

I really do think the comparison to vehicle licenses is valid, even if it's not protected in a country's constitution. Not only do you have to be a certain age, but you have to prove that you can do it safely, and for vehicles that are a bit more dangerous (ie: trucks, for example) you've got to prove it again.

Forgive my ignorance of specific US federal and state laws regarding this, I know I'm speaking in generalities. Just my two cents...

But that is not really how vehicles are handled. Licensing is only required to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, not to purchase or own one, or to operate on private land. I can take a big wad of cash, drive three states over, and buy all the cars I want, at 4 am, without anyone making a report to the government. Perfectly legal. Can't do that with guns.

**gunnut** · 23 Dec 08,, 18:46

Originally Posted by GraniteForge

That could be a fatal error.

Having participated in extensive testing of various kinds of knives against various kinds of meat, clothed and unclothed, I can report that serrated blades have a "hitch" in the slicing motion at each serration, and are both slower to complete a defensive cut, and more difficult to withdraw.

So cut your meat with a serrated knife, but use a plain edge on the zombies. Or, you could just keep a titanium crowbar at hand for head bashing. You know, that titanium makes it so light you feel like you could cave in zombie heads all day.

Actually I was thinking about cutting the steak and shooting the zombies, all without putting the gun down.

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 23 Dec 08,, 19:32

Originally Posted by gunnut

Actually I was thinking about cutting the steak and shooting the zombies, all without putting the gun down.

If some zombie juice from being shot got on the bayonet, and then on your steak, would you then turn into a zombie? Is there even a scientific consensus on the mechanism behind creating new zombies?

I say: take no chances. Keep your steak knives and your zombie knives completely separate. I hope Obama makes this a priority. We receive shockingly little information about zombies from the current government.

**gunnut** · 23 Dec 08,, 20:20

My friend, all your questions will be answered in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Surviva...0063547&sr=8-1

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 23 Dec 08,, 23:44

Originally Posted by gunnut

My friend, all your questions will be answered in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Surviva...0063547&sr=8-1

Finally, all that research we have been paying for has a practical application!

**Blue** · 24 Dec 08,, 00:23

Originally Posted by gunnut

My friend, all your questions will be answered in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Surviva...0063547&sr=8-1

I find that highly pertinent to the forum and should be recommended for the WAB store..............Seriously.

)

**Blue** · 24 Dec 08,, 00:37

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Here's the text of the Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...03CVuam:e7701:

Apparently my 25-round .22 LR clip passes the test, and .22 is the only caliber in which magazines with greater than 10 round capacity are permitted.

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

Actually any removable clip over 10rnds would be illegal, except for pre-ban mags. The tubular mag is common on many 22 rifles(holds 18 usually) and that is what is the exception. Your 30 round 10/22 ruger mags put you on the list of naughty boy! By the wording of this, I would interpret it to mean that all post ban mags would be illegal. We now have a dillemma though because we now have post/post-ban mags now. Gun ban manufactured hi-cap mags where permanently stamped with "for police or military use only". Pre ban had no such stamping. Now, post/post ban manuf mags have no such marks, so how would they determine pre mags from post/posts?

GF(or anyone in the know and sober), correct me if I'm wrong on this(I have been drinking heavily this eve

)

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 24 Dec 08,, 00:58

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Actually any removable clip over 10rnds would be illegal, except for pre-ban mags. The tubular mag is common on many 22 rifles(holds 18 usually) and that is what is the exception. Your 30 round 10/22 ruger mags put you on the list of naughty boy! By the wording of this, I would interpret it to mean that all post ban mags would be illegal. We now have a dillemma though because we now have post/post-ban mags now. Gun ban manufactured hi-cap mags where permanently stamped with "for police or military use only". Pre ban had no such stamping. Now, post/post ban manuf mags have no such marks, so how would they determine pre mags from post/posts?

GF(or anyone in the know and sober), correct me if I'm wrong on this(I have been drinking heavily this eve

)

Yeah, you are basically correct from how I understand it. Detachable mags over 10 rds = no, even for .22s, but tube mags OK.

However, advocates of a new ban do not want to grandfather all tubular .22 mags over 10 rds, just those up to some defined future cutoff date. After that, it would be illegal to sell tube mags over 10. And let me add that the original number of over anything 7 rounds being illegal is not off the table, and some are even talking about 6. They are also kicking around the idea of a phased introduction of these lower numbers, probably in conjunction with making it illegal to sell any grandfathered items to another regular citizen.

Also, some "post ban" detachable mags are marked with the manufacturing date. It is not done by every manufacturer on every mag, but when it is done, the markings are usually inside the mag tube, and consist of a "manufacturing data code," rather than a plainly readable date.

**Blue** · 24 Dec 08,, 01:16

Originally Posted by GraniteForge

Yeah, you are basically correct from how I understand it. Detachable mags over 10 rds = no, even for .22s, but tube mags OK.

However, advocates of a new ban do not want to grandfather all tubular .22 mags over 10 rds, just those up to some defined future cutoff date. After that, it would be illegal to sell tube mags over 10. And let me add that the original number of over anything 7 rounds being illegal is not off the table, and some are even talking about 6. They are also kicking around the idea of a phased introduction of these lower numbers, probably in conjunction with making it illegal to sell any grandfathered items to another regular citizen.

Also, some "post ban" detachable mags are marked with the manufacturing date. It is not done by every manufacturer on every mag, but when it is done, the markings are usually inside the mag tube, and consist of a "manufacturing data code," rather than a plainly readable date.

So I am wondering how they would manage that, with the post and ban mags.......Turn them in?(NOT!) Bust me if they catch me with them? I can see a VERY BIG problem here! (I wish there was a smilie for nefarious and rebellious

) Naw, I'm serious, I want one!

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 24 Dec 08,, 01:29

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

So I am wondering how they would manage that, with the post and ban mags.......Turn them in?(NOT!) Bust me if they catch me with them? I can see a VERY BIG problem here! (I wish there was a smilie for nefarious and rebellious

) Naw, I'm serious, I want one!

Well, yeah, they would prosecute. They would probably use an incentive plan, a mix of fear and snitches, and perhaps "buybacks," to take those mags out of circulation. Massachusetts has their own AWB (sorry, Sapper), and Mass residents sometimes go to other states to buy mags that are legal in the selling state but not back in Mass, and if they are caught in Mass with the mags, they are prosecuted. They do use a mix of fear and snitches to find those to prosecute.

**Blue** · 24 Dec 08,, 02:14

Originally Posted by GraniteForge

Well, yeah, they would prosecute.

The steps of our legal process;

1. Probable cause for warrant.

FISA is step one in eliminating that.

2. Apprehension.

NOT going to happen.

step 3 would have been trial and 4 would be incarceration. But those steps are rendered moot because I never have been incarcerated and have vowed never to be. See step 2.

Am I alone on this? Or am I just the only one stupid enough to say it?

**Shamus** · 24 Dec 08,, 02:21

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

The steps of our legal process;

1. Probable cause for warrant.

FISA is step one in eliminating that.

2. Apprehension.

NOT going to happen.

step 3 would have been trial and 4 would be incarceration. But those steps are rendered moot because I never have been incarcerated and have vowed never to be. See step 2.

Am I alone on this? Or am I just the only one stupid enough to say it?

No Snipe,you're not alone nor are you stupid by any means.

**~~GraniteForge~~** · 24 Dec 08,, 02:43

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

The steps of our legal process;

1. Probable cause for warrant.

FISA is step one in eliminating that.

2. Apprehension.

NOT going to happen.

step 3 would have been trial and 4 would be incarceration. But those steps are rendered moot because I never have been incarcerated and have vowed never to be. See step 2.

Am I alone on this? Or am I just the only one stupid enough to say it?

Originally Posted by Shamus

No Snipe,you're not alone nor are you stupid by any means.

The way its done is Mass is this: Its a possessory offense, so no warrant is needed or obtained. Someone fingers you or you get unlucky for some reason (for example, you legally sell a rifle and some spare mags to someone. One of the mags is prohibited. He panics and turns in the mag, fingering you). They grab you, and you are done. Its a purely factual case. The item is prohibited, no matter how it came into your possession. They can either take your scalp, or lean on you with the felony to roll over on your shooting buddies

Could you guys elaborate the FISA point? I don't understand.