Assault Gun Ban...... includes single shot shotguns ?

This has already been passed to committe for consideration, as I understand it. It's real.

GovTrack: H.R. 6257: Text of Legislation, Introduced in House

Includes :
Harrington & Richardson Topper Classic Youth Shotgun (single shot)
Savage 110CY Youth/Ladies Rifle
Ruger 10/22 Autoloading Carbine (w/o folding stock)
Stoeger/IGA Reuna Single Barrel Shotgun
Remington 700 rifle

Have they entirely lost their minds ... ??? Are they really saying a Ruger 10/22 could no longer be sold ? YES... they are ! It restricts any gun that can hold more than a 5 shot mag. But single shot .. shotguns ? YES , they're there too.

Someone up there needs to get off the drugs.

I couldn't believe the shotguns and lever action rifles that they included. What is the point of all of those ??

And, selling it to the American People that this is an "assault weapon" ban. These should be pointed out strongly ... how non-assault many of these guns are, and that the anti's have lost it.

That would be really scary and strange...if it were true. The weapons listed in Appendix A are specifically EXEMPT from classification as an "assault wepon," and would not be included in the ban. A pertinent part of the text is here (emphasis mine, and "Paragraph (1)" in this case refers to the paragraph that would make "assault weapons" illegal):

Quote:

---

‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;


‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

---

Clearly, if a semi-automatic shotgun with a 5-round capacity would be exempt, then any single-shot shotgun would be exempt. This is a terrible bill, certainly, but it does not ban single-shot shotguns.

The sad thing is that the public, and politicians typically fall into this group, have a single mindset, big and bad. The word "assault weapon" conjures up this fear of mass killings (lets hope they never start using the term in relation to handguns).

Whether right or wrong (wrong!!!) I believe that banning them is an easy sell to the uninformed. They will not understand at all why a single shot gun is not as deadly, they only see it as "a big gun", thus its easy to sell to the public that this gun needs to be banned, it is bad. A lot of the public buy into that easily.

What I find funny, sad, whatever is that if you think guns are such a bag thing, then its handguns, not big ass assault rifles. When is the last time someone robbed a kwicky mart with an assault rifle? It just shows how uniformed they are, they have no clue how guns are used and what the bad guys are using.

There are a few places that call any weapon that holds more than 10 rounds a machine gun. Pistol or rifle...

"The south shall rise again"

If you're refering to SEC. 6. APPENDIX A TO SECTION 922 OF TITLE 18, those are all the guns that are "excluded" from the ban.

The following list is what would be included as far as long guns go

(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means--

‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‘(v) a grenade launcher;

‘(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
‘(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
‘(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
‘(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
‘(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’.

My "apologies" to the group. I mis-read that the Appendix items were exempt. Upon re-reading .... it does exempt those in the Appendix.

Sorry for my mis-statement.

I feel better, but still think the ban is ridiculous. It also amazes me they would list a single shotgun in the Appendix, as if there were any question about it.

Obviously they are getting an early start on it...... although it's amazing to me that this is being proposed by a couple of Republcians. Contact with our Congressman and Senator, they have stated strongly, they will resist "any further restrictions" on our 2A rights in "any form".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philman

When is the last time someone robbed a kwicky mart with an assault rifle?

---

News 8 Austin | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES

Note the bad guy with the AK-47 was killed by a HAND GUN in front of the FoodMart.

Now as I understood the previous ban, it only banned the sale of assault weapons, not assault weapons parts. Is it the same with this ban, or have they closed that loophole. Did the previous ban also prohibit possession, or did it just prohibit manufacture and transfer?

I may be wrong on my interpretation on the previous ban, please inform me if i am mistaken.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

How do you read paragraph two? Is it stating if you own one you can continue to own it or am I being optimistic?

HR 6257 has a little over a month to live and still hasn't made it out of committee. Democrats haven't even lined up behind it. Preparing for this version isn't going to be overly helpful, methinks.


-B

Basically means as long as it was made before the ban and legally owned before the ban, its in the clear. Thats how it was with the 1994 AWB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kgregson

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

How do you read paragraph two? Is it stating if you own one you can continue to own it or am I being optimistic?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAC

HR 6257 has a little over a month to live and still hasn't made it out of committee. Democrats haven't even lined up behind it. Preparing for this version isn't going to be overly helpful, methinks.
-B

---

That is quite comforting actually. I don't think anything of the sort will make it out of committee in the near future either. The Critters know the pressure they were under to not reauthorize, and they don't need the aggravation they would bring on themselves if they actually passed a new AWB.

They know how to count votes, and the votes aren't there and won't be.

That's exactly right. I hope everyone here takes note of that.

1. Only five people supported the new bill; that's right, not even Feinstein, Pelosi, and their ilk would touch it.
2. HR6257 was a carbon-copy of the '94 crime law. Every single attempt at reinstating a newer, stronger "ban" failed from the moment the previous law's 2004 sunset, so they tried bringing back the original and still failed to get support.
3. Two of the five co-sponsors to the 2008 law no longer serve in Congress.

I wasn't being 'youthfully optimistic' when I said the sky is not falling. Congress is scared to death of gun control, and the utter lack of support, and even mention of support, from Congress during an election year should go a long way to helping people realize that.


-B

I was wondering at one point, if this was a backdoor approach to allow people to "keep" their assault rifles.

Follow this logic :
Pelosi wants to not only ban them, but ban the possession of them as well. So, to stop a "confiscation " of the AR's, beat her to the punch and push a ban which still allows the owners to keep possession if they already legally own them.

Just a thought, because Pelosi is in support of a ban, but she probably thinks this one is not strong enough. If they passed this one, then ..... any additional restrictions might become moot and/or even more difficult for then to get any support for it.