Senator Feinstein is giving up gun control!!!!

[rangersmith82]

So are we finally dropping the anti gun BS???


Feinstein disputed any suggestion that she would serve as party renegade, noting that she votes with most of her fellow Democrats most of the time. Still, more conflicts seem certain.

She would like to resurrect the federal assault weapons ban she regards as one of her proudest achievements. The ban expired in 2004, when Republicans controlled Congress. But such an effort could put Obama and Democratic leaders in a difficult spot, given their efforts to appeal to a broader swath of voters. During his campaign, Obama largely shied away from the gun debate.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-feinstein17-2009jan17,0,2697505.story

[bluestateguy]

1. I hope so

I want to carry Missouri and Texas and the deepest of the Deep South, blood red states in 2012.

That doesn't happen if we do gun control (as if there aren't already enough federal laws on the books anyway).

Gun control makes us look like the effeminate sissy party.

[Merlot]

2. Assault weapons aren't guns

Banning assault weapons is not "gun control."

[virginia mountainman]

3. Define "Assault weapons" ....

And explain why they should be banned...

[Fovea]

5. Easily full auto convertable?

Banana clip?

Most suburbanites I know would find it difficult to keep an AK47 in line with the stock suppressor.
Most game in my neighborhood don't need that kind of firehose.

I feel comfy and safe with my Replica Colt Model 3 Dragoon with 65gr of Pyrodex FFF pushing
a lovingly cast at home conical, sitting here next to my chair.

The guy who comes bursting through my door will go back through it on fire, with a hole so big that starlight will twinkle through it.

Don't need no jungle clip here in the city.
A full auto piece does not make my house, or the general vicinity safer, IMO.

You live in Montana so far out you are online via sat phone?
Cool.

But bring it into my hood, and prepare to enjoy scenic Larned, KS for five.

That's my opinion, any way.

[doc03]

7. Your Replica Colt Model 3 Dragoon would have been

considered a dangerous military style assault weapon back in its day. A Winchester 73 was a machine gun in comparison to the old single shot front loaders back in its day. I think any semi-auto could be converted to full auto if you knew your guns. With all the firearms in the US just how many shootings can be attributed to assault weapons? If there were any did they get them legally in the first place? Every time I see someone arrested for drugs they always say they possessed firearms then show a picture of an old single shot .22 or an old beat up shotgun, I have yet to see an AK47.

[pipoman]

10. I would think someone who claims to

know anything about guns would realize that nobody here, in DC, or anywhere else is/have said anything whatsoever about fully automatic anything. That there is no such thing as an 'easily convertible' modern semiautomatic rifle. That there hasn't been a serious crime committed in the US with a fully automatic rifle in over 10 years and that you can count on one hand the amount over the last 30 years in the US. That if there were 'easily convertible' weapons available, they would likely be easily converted and used for crime, but alas, they are not. That, in fact, fully automatic rifles have been effectively banned in the US since 1934. I would expect that person to realize that with literally millions of modern semiautomatic rifles in circulation, since they are the most sold segment of firearms in America, there are relatively few used in crime and few gangs are walking around with 8 pound rifles. But, much to my disappointment, these internets are littered with posers and those willing to unzip their skulls and let the propagandists shovel them full of shit, then go to spewing the shit like a firehose on the rest of the public who are more than willing to believe the shit they are hearing without question. Too bad...

[doc03]

12. Like I said every time I see the cops haul in

some drug dealer they always make an issue about them having firearms and cash. Then you see the evidence a couple old .22s or an old shotgun and cash since when is having cash a crime.

[X_Digger]

17. or airsoft....

I need to find the link, but one newspaper published a picture of an arms 'cache' that included airsoft replica air guns mixed in with some .22s and a few revolvers.

[Caliman73]

41. Agreed about the firearms

You rarely see military hardware in those busts. The cash and firearms though are typically for show and evidence. When you have an unemployed person with a stack of cash, that can be suspicious. Having cash is a crime if the cash is the result of an illegal activity. That is why the usually freeze assets on the bigger fish.

[bossy22]

11. easily convertable semi auto to full auto

firearms were banned back in the 80's. "Assault weapons" are just semi-autos and thats it

[raimius]

13. Uh...no

Firearms which can easily be converted to full-auto are classified as title II weapons under the 1934 National Firearms Act. The production of such firearms for civilian ownership is already illegal.

Suppressors are also regulated under the 1934 NFA. They are subject to extra background checks, BATFE approval, a $200 tax stamp, and the signature of your local chief LEO.

Banana clip--so you want to outlaw magazines which curve in a specific manner...why? Most "high capacity magazine" bans try to outlaw designs older than most posters here. Original 1930s Browning HP mags? Banned. Standard M1A mags, based of a 1950s design? Banned. Standard production Glock, Berretta, FN, Springfield Army, etc. etc. etc? Banned.--if these idiotic laws are enacted.

AK47s? Heavily regulated since they were designed, and banned for civilian production since 1986.

Before you endorse gun control, please know what you are talking about.

[Fovea]

14. The question was to define an assault weapon

To me, a rifle you can make full auto with a flat file, and takes more than a seven round clip is primarily designed for assault.

That is how I would define the term. If you prefer DiFi's, groovy.

Here in KCKS, Glock's seem to be de rigeur.

You're right, only you know what you are talking about.

Why don't you go back to talking to yourself?

[X_Digger]

16. full auto with a flat file?

Only old PPS-* SMGs that have been converted to semi, or early UZIs with a blocking bar fall under that classification. Those are covered under the NFA as 'easily convertable', and really don't come into the market that often anymore. For a modern weapon like the AR-15, you'd have to machine and install an auto-sear (if you can do that, you could create ANY MG from scratch) or buy an m-16 auto-sear (which requires class 3 paperwork).

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Digger is right. If a weapon is that easily converted, in the eyes of the law it IS a fully automati

c weapon. Period. Which are verboten for import or production post... uh... 1986 or 88, somewhere thereabouts.

Most rifles need significant replacement parts to convert to full auto, including in some cases, the upper AND lower, the trigger, safety, hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, sear, etc. Filing off a tab isn't enough, you must introduce new metal, where there is none, parts that may not be present, or in the case of surplus weapons from the military, add metal where metal has been removed.

If the BATFE decides a weapon can be converted with a cut or shave here or there, they will label it a full auto weapon, unilaterally, and remove it from legal import or manufacture. A manufacturer might appeal that decision, but I've never once heard of one being reversed.

[tburnsten]

32. You should re-read his post

He is on point and trying to inform you that the BATFE identifies any firearm that can be converted to full-auto as a full-auto, they have even prosecuted someone for possession of an illegal machine gun that was actually a shoelace.

[X_Digger]

15. "easily convertible"..

.. only easily convertible if you have such a machine shop that you could conceivably make a full auto weapon from scratch.

Your Model 3 would make a bigger hole than many of the guns covered by the last AWB.

Full auto weapons don't often come up for sale to the general public, and when they do, they're in the $5k+ range for anything decent, and require all kinds of registration, fingerprinting, etc.

[-Wolverine-]

25. Re: Easily full auto convertable?

The 1968 GCA prohibits firearms that are readily converted to automatic.

[rl6214]

37. It's not a clip, it's a magazine

And the weapons that have always been called "assault weapons" are not full auto, they are semi-auto.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. The DiFi AWB was bad fiction

lets keep it on the ash heap of history

[rangersmith82]

6. Banning assault rifles is not banning guns???

Could you pass the crack pipe???

So called assault rifle=semi auto rifle owned by law abiding citizen.

[ManiacJoe]

21. Are you missing an adjective?

> Assault weapons aren't guns

By any crazy definition of "assault weapon", they are guns (guns=firearms).

[benEzra]

24. Not only are they "guns," they are the most popular civilian rifles in the United States.

"Assault weapon" = non-automatic, small-to-intermediate caliber civilian rifle with modern styling. They dominate recreational and competitive target shooting in the United States, and are the most popular defensive carbines in U.S. homes.

Looks like the "turn your brain off and fear this" meme worked on you...

[DrCory]

29. Oh, This Is Rich!

"Assault weapons aren't guns"

You got some 'splaining to do.

[dalus]

39. I'm pretty sure this post relies on the pre-Brady definiton of assault weapons

What's Merlot is most likely getting at is that assault weapons are really flamethrowers and such. Equivocating over the definition of the term rather than addressing the issue.

[Caliman73]

42. A gun is a gun.

Assault weapons are rifle or carbine length weapons that fire an intermediate cartridge between a pistol caliber and a full power rifle cartridge, that are capable of select fire from semi-automatic to full automatic. Those weapons are already heavily regulated as Class III weapons which are generally only available to military and law enforcement.

The only thing that may make a military style rifle more dangerous than other weapons is that they can be loaded with more rounds than the typical rifle. Not a problem in California and other states where all firearms are limited to 10 rounds.

Banning any firearm is gun control. I am not opposed to sensible regulations, but there is way too much subjectivity and fear being spread around.

[lib2DaBone]

8. She's anti gun..her husband is major Iraq War Criminal...

"Smoke Screen" Feinstein with a touch of Strawman thrown in for good luck.

[tucsonlib]

9. Re: Senator Feinstein is giving up gun control!!!!

Amazing how a such an un-newsworthy news article on a subject so irrelevantly esoteric(!!!!) is enough to send you into such throes of joy(!!!!) and ecstasy(!!!!)!!!!
If tomorrow's headlines were to read "Martians Land In Washington" I doubt you'd find it deserving of more than a single exclamation point.

[Angleae]

19. Actually, I'd believe the martians headline more.

Feinstein has spent a great deal of her political career pushing gun control/gun bans. She isn't about to give up.

[tucsonlib]

20. And I Should Care Because....?

[tburnsten]

33. Well, you did start posting in this thread

Tell me why you care?

[SteveM]

47. I noticed that as well. Such militant apathy. (nt)

[DrCory]

35. It's Only Un-Newsworthy...

Because her decision is contrary to your wishes.

If she had stated an intention to press for new gun control measures, you would find that most newsworthy indeed.

[Taitertots]

18. Feinstein is certainly not giving up gun control

Just read the article you posted. It says she is active in trying to resurrect the semi-auto weapons ban, and considers the first semi-auto weapons ban one of her proudest achievements.


I love how the discussion about gun control is clouded in people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and people who believe them. There is always someone that thinks the AWB made full autos illegal, or that AKs are easily convertible to full auto with a file. The same people who talk about clips.


I don't want to be dishonest you could make a semi into an auto by two means. One it would just slam fire the whole magazine as soon as you closed the bolt, and stand a good chance of firing out of battery. Or if you have certain types of guns you can use a shoe string. Of course having a shoe string with a loop at the end and one of those guns is technically manufacturing an automatic and a federal crime.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. I have heard tell of some extremely worn out

older semi-autos of primitive design 'firing full auto' because they were worn out. But as you point out, that's probably slam-firing, or possibly a runaway, either of which is an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CONDITION, and the weapon may very well energetically dissasemble in your hands, and take your hands, and other valauble parts of you with it.

Edit: Spelling.

[423aaron]

26. It also resulted in an inocent man going to prison.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/05/sentencing-of-a.html

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I would love to take a look at that AR.

That should be completely, physically impossible, unless parts had been replaced with M-16 parts. I don't buy the defense's explanation. If it was a manufacturing defect, why don't more AR's show this problem?

If I could get about 2 minutes with my hands on that rifle, I could tell you exactly what was the problem. Of course, that would not show whether the owner was aware of it. I expect more info might be available in the court docs. If any witness came forward and stated he knew the weapon could fire full auto, even for a 2 round burst, his goose is cooked.

[X_Digger]

28. Broken disconnector spring?

Maybe a blown primer stuck under the disconnector? Sounds like an OOB discharge waiting to happen- YIKES!

eta: I did some more reading, looks like the BATFE had to WORK to make it double- cheap ammo, old mags, repeated testing until they CAUSED a malfunction.

[Statistical]

30. Exactly.

The BATFE had to test the weapon numerous times (I believe it was over 100 times) in order to duplicate the effect.

The effect wasn't repeatable even then. More an accident.

[one-eyed fat man]

31. not quite a defect

Back in the old days, a very few of the early AR manufacturer's, used some M16 fire control components in their semi guns. This was long before the ATF's letter to the industry about the "5 magic parts."

Some descriptions of the gun, from the guys own posts on ARFCOM, strongly hint that it may have been set up for a drop in auto sear. Without the auto-sear installed, or with a broken disconnect the hammer will not remain cocked but will follow the bolt down back into battery. More often than not, that would result in a stoppage, but on occasion, with an sensitive primer, it might result in the gun doubling. As you point out, with the correct bolt carrier, a hammer follow situation isn't possible as the parts are designed to preclude it.

There is still a question about the ATF's testing as the first time it was tested, it was reported that when the selector was placed in the unmarked position, the gun would fire, cycle and chamber a second round which did not fire. Pulling the trigger again produced no result as the hammer was already forward. The charging handle was manipulated, ejecting the unfired round, chambering a fresh round and re-cocking the hammer. The ATF technician did that several times.

The rifle was ordered retested, ammunition was deliberately loaded with pistol primers, and then it could be made to double. While I believe the guy in this case was skating on awfully thin ice with his AR, the fact remains that the ATF's standard on constitutes a machinegun is so elastic that it could be stretched to send any poor chump who has had his Colt's Dragoon chain fire to Club Fed.

Remember these are the guys who ruled a bootlace as a machinegun.

http://www.mp5.net/info/ATF_Ruling_2004-09-30_String_Trick.pdf

[AtheistCrusader]

34. I'm acutally curious

I know the 'five magic parts' but I don't know, if you have a weapon that was made before that ruling, are you required to replace those parts on your own? Did that ruling by the BATFE only apply to new weapons, at the time the ruling was issued?

[one-eyed fat man]

36. How good a lawyer.........

.........do you have?

As far as I know the "5 magic parts" haven't been challenged directly in court. The ATF certainly has announced their intent to persecute....er prosecute with their industry letter. They have gone so far as to inform those of us who own registered M16's about having spare parts for a duly registered machinegun and owning an AR-15. They go so far as to say while there is no law against owning both a legal M16 and an AR-15 they would rather you get rid of one or the other.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter90.txt

You can own a barn full of the 5 magic parts and no AR and be legal.

You can own and M16 and have a barn full of spare parts for it.

Their position is if you own any of the 5 magic parts and an AR you have an unassembled machinegun. Therefore as soon as you possess an AR you may have no spare parts for your machinegun.

It is also their position if you own,for example, an M4 carbine, which comes with a 14.5 inch barrel (there or no length restrictions on machineguns) and have a semi-auto AR, since you could swap uppers from the M4 and the AR that you possess an unregistered SBR. Oddly, they don't have to find you with the illegally assembled combination. They don't have to prove you ever assembled the unlawful configuration, only that you have the parts to do so.

No doubt, if you come under their scrutiny for anything and they find an M16 bolt carrier in your rifle, they will pounce on you if it's all they find. Remember, when it comes to court, they have unlimited resources, they can bleed you dry with administrative and civil procedures. You may eventually win in court only to be able to buy your house again as it is mortgaged to your eyeballs in legal fees. You only have the right to a court-appointed attorney in a criminal case. Sometimes they are content to merely bankrupt you or drive you out of business.

If I owned an AR, I'd make sure no M16 parts were anywhere in my grid square.

[The Rubicon]

43. 90% Accurate

For the most part post 36 is correct, however, I do wish to correct one technical error. An M16 bolt carrier by itself will NOT cause an otherwise semi-auto AR to fire more than one shot per trigger pull.(Which is the technical definition of a MG) Colt(recent ones at least)ship ALL their ARs(yes, including the ones for civilian sale)with M16 bolt carriers. Given how downright phobic Colt is of litigation, if the ATF had a problem with this policy in any way, I'm guessing Colt wouldn't be doing it. You had just better make damn well sure there are ABSOLUTELY NO M16 lower receiver parts anywhere near, let alone, inside your rifle, or as one-eyed fat man said "in my grid square", would be sound advice.:)

[one-eyed fat man]

45. back to the letter

You are correct that an M16 bolt carrier will not, of itself cause a rifle to become full auto. The fact remains, despite Colt shipping an M16 style carrier in current guns, the ATF's 1995 industry letter has not been rescinded.

It is the ATF's position that if you constructively possess ANY of the 5 magic parts, (of which the carrier is one) and an AR they can, and are giving fair warning, that they are willing to prosecute you for possession of an unregistered machingun.

They prosecuted a guy who had a stock for his VP-70M with possession of an unregistered SBR because he also owned an VP-70Z. Fortunately the jury had better sense and acquitted him of the charge.

The agency is incredibly fickle, more than one SOT has requested a ruling IN WRITING, complied faithfully only to be later arrested when they change their mind.

[The Rubicon]

46. Whether or not

they change they're mind is irrelevant, unless, and only if, your rifle fires more than one round per trigger pull can you be charged with possessing an unregistered MG. I'll go ahead here and quote the relevant portions of a letter sent to Colt by the ATF dated Feb 10 2005, and link you to a readable photo copy of it:

"Accordingly, based on previous FTB(Firearms Technology Branch)recommendations not to install this carrier and the conclusions presented in passage cited above, our branch cannot specifically authorize you to install an M16 bolt carrier into an AR15 rifle. Also, we cannot definitively tell you that installing an M16 bolt carrier in an AR15 will make that firearm fire automatically. We can only inform you that if this installation were to create a firearm that fires automatically, it would be a machine gun as defined; CONVERSELY, IF IT DID NOT RESULT IN THE PRODUCTION OF A WEAPON THAT SHOOTS AUTOMATICALLY, IT WOULD BE LAWFUL TO POSSESS AND MAKE."(Emphasis mine)

Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. Scroll down to the bottom of this page: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=14534 to view the letter in its entirety.:)

[423aaron]

38. From memory

I believe the guy had an older Olympic AR. The company reps even said that they had a problem early on with some part. I can't remember off the top of my head which part.

As to the ATF's testing, the JPFO sells a video of them testing a FAL. They show how much work they put into trying to make a rifle double so they can call it a machine gun.

I've been on a range and seen a Garand double and I also saw a Markarov pistol double. Each due to worn parts.

[dalus]

40. What right will she let us have next? n/t

[rangersmith82]

44. The goverment will tell what rights you need!!!

Quit worring about yourself and worry about the good of the collective!!! :sarcasm:

[gobhock]

48. GUNS AND AMMO

From: Flo Ron Paul 2012
Date: Jan 27, 2009 4:00 PM


From: "Eric Nordstrom" ..





PATRIOT NETWORK EMERGENCY ALERT 012709
---------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL AMERICANS - THIS IS NOT A DRILL!
---------------------------------------------------------------

Ammunition Accountability Legislation

Remember how Obama said that he wasn't going to take your guns?
Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no
problem with taking your ammo!

The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and
Indiana ) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture
a data base of all ammunition sales.

So they will know how much you
buy and what calibers.



http://ammunitionaccountability.
org/Legislation.
htm

Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the
ammunition is coded.



Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1,
2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .

05
cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at
least $2.

50 or more!

If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun!

All eyes are diverted on talk radio topics, bailouts, television
entertainments/news/propaganda, while state level legislatures are
placing the second amendment into a grave.



This legislation is currently IN COMMITTEE in 18 states: Alabama,
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
Washington.



Send to every person in these united states!

To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring this
legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to:

http://ammunitionaccountability.
org/Legislation.
htm

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep
and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in Government.

" - Thomas Jefferson

----------------------------------------------------------------
END OF MESSAGE - DISTRIBUTE AS REQUIRED
----------------------------------------------------------------

NOT ON THE PATRIOT EMERGENCY ALERT LIST?
Add yourself: http://nordstrom1.
com


2909 South George Drive, McConnell AFB, Kansas 67210

[X_Digger]

49. Instant Monopoly!

These guys spent 4 years and $200k to develop then patent this system, then when nobody wanted to buy it.. they push legislation requiring it.