Dems introduce high-capacity magazine ban in the House
 

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/dems..._in_the_house/

Related video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrAt7-ij2k

"Don't come to California, California will come to you"?

Well at least its gun regulations might.

If you haven't I suggest you write your representatives.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...046526&type=ML

Knew this was coming. We will just have to see what happens. I've done my writing. All three of my reps are against any gun control bills. Their voting record back them up. At least some of the frenzy that was running so strongly a couple weeks ago has died down.

Personally I don't really care what a rep says about the NRA to a reporter. The real influence comes when the NRA gets that senator's constituents to write and call his/her offices.

It was just as bad (in my opinion worse) in the summer of 1999 after Colombine. Except then they had the AWB in place so they were going after other stuff.

Clinton held a nationally televised press conference in which he trotted out all the various gun control bills and he and Hillary blathered on and on about how this was for the best. The package of bills passed through the senate by one vote (Al Gore was the deciding vote) and then died in the House.

Clinton was furious when that happened. He was in Europe at the time it died and he told the press that "Those people are a threat to national security". Those people being American gun-owners. I was in the Army at the time and I was absoutely disgusted with him. I was a threat. The guy wearing the uniform.

Rosie O'Donnell stated on her show that if you owned a gun in America in 1999 you should be in prison. Everywhere you turned the celebs and talking heads were coming after us. The anti-gun fever went on for months after Colombine.It was nuts. It's probably the most politically active that I've ever been.

It was a very close thing. Many a politican was talking about how the NRA was out of touch and no longer had any influence and they were going to vote their conscience and not listen to anyone telling them otherwise. The momentum of the gun grabbers almost seemed unstoppable.

From what I can see it isn't nearly as feverish as it was thirteen years ago. Much of the furor seems to have already died down, but don't relax either.

Gore went on to lose his own state in the presidential election the next year, which would've turned the election for him. The gun grabbers backed off after that.

The sense I'm getting from all of my gun bloggers and what's coming out in the news is a sense of guarded optimism that the bill(s) will fail, but I fear some sort of Hail mary from a democratic senate sensing a weakened GOP and fearing voter black lash in the upcoming mid-term elections. or a copy cat shooting with an AR-15.

I'm with you. A guarded optimism. Good description.

Sen. McConnell stated that no gun control measures would be heard for atleast three months while Congress tackled the fiscal cliff and the economy.

To me, this is both good and bad. Your average American will forget about gun control, which is good, but your average gun owner will too, which is bad.

To quote Jeb Stuart, "keep up the skeer."

At least a three month wait will take away a lot of the emotional component to this

That's what I'm thinking.

Sometimes the set up of our government, that allows gridlock and delays, can work in our favor. I remember in the U.K. and Australia, after their big shooting massacres in 96 (Dunblane and Port Arthur), those governments moved with breath-taking speed to outlaw the various firearms. The gun-grabbers were able to strike when the iron was more than hot it was scorching.

A couple days after Sandy Barbara Boxer (I believe it was Boxer) said in an interview that the AWB could become law if they could vote on it before the week was over. And she was right.

Gotta love checks and balances

President Obama has, according to VP Biden, promised to take executive action if Congress does not. Meaning he will issue an executive order to ban guns. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is a massive infringement on the constitution. By our own president.

This is not 13 years ago. This is very different. Obama promised to "fundamentally change" this nation.

I've just read something about this. We're not sure what is going on but this is getting serious.

I have to wonder how much he CAN do. Executive Orders are not immune to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, which has been pro-gun of late.

From everything that I've read it appears to me that Biden's mouth ran away from him again. Not like he hasn't done that before.

One problem at a time. Let's deal with the Legislative branch and then see what our dear Leader wants to do.

Yes. One problem at a time. I understand the desire to yell and scream and bounce off the walls but that doesn't accomplish all that much. And I really don't care that Obama promised to "fundamentally change the country". Words, words and more words from a politician.

Lets all take a breath and deal with one thing at a time.

Wyoming’s Firearms Protection Act: Wyoming Proposes Jail time for Feds who Enforce Gun Laws

http://offgridsurvival.com/wyomingsf...iltimeforfeds/

If only all states would do something like this. The metaphorical equivalent to an adult screaming over a toddler not to touch the hot stove. :cool:

Makes me proud to live in Wyoming.

a bill would be doa in a republican house and dem senators in rural or gun friendly states wont risk re election by going after guns.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Interesting resource

Great stuff.

I've long been baffled by why we use the term on the wiki when classifying weapons. Why do we allow help the gun grabbers perpetuate their myths?

Like it or not, "Assault Rifle" is not a term that was made up by gun control advocates, it is a legitimate term. As that very link says, "Assault Weapons" and "Assault Rifles" are two different things and are not interchangeable. Granted most of the time in TV and Movies an "Assault Rifle" may actually be a civillian semi-automatic rifle modified to full auto, but this is what it is intended to be and what it functionally now is, so I see no problem categorising it as such. If we had a section on a page called "Assault Weapons" and put Uzi Pistols and Tec-9s in there, then we would have a problem, but as it stands we use the correct classification for these weapons.

Yeah, assault rifle is formally defined as a select-fire weapon which fires an intermediate round, it's one of the most solid classifications for a weapon type. If it were gun-grabby we'd be calling the entire Beretta 92 series "machine guns" since one of them can fire in bursts.

I list rifles altogether, M16, M1 Garand etc. So they can just be listed as "Rifles" no assault.

If I do a page that doesn't have many long guns, i tend to just put them in a "Rifles" section, but on big pages i have on occasion split them into "Rifles" "Assault Rifles" and "Sniper Rifles". Is not perfect classification as they are all still "Rifles" and some of the assault rifles will probably be battle rifles, but is better than nothing.

http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html

Ruger has a shortcut way to email all of your local and state officials, representatives, senators, and other officials.

Same here.

Wasn't Ruger on the other side of the issue the last time?

Yeah they were, along with several other makers as well I think. (It was mostly Bill Ruger though.) I guess they finally realized it's best to side with gun owners and not politicians.

I was reading about the new laws in NY and looking at this post on TFB, and I got a crazy way to get around high-cap magazine bans: an AR-15 upper that feeds off of a Hotchkiss style strip. Or, one that uses a hopper like the Japanese Type 11 LMG.

Crazy idea, or something workable?

With the original AWB I think all things of this sort were banned under the heading of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", so I think they would be similarly banned for this assuming it is written by someone who can tell his/her arsehole from his/her elbow (I am not taking this as a given).

Not related to this, more to a possible AWB, but I have had an idea in my head for a while about having an AR-15 upper that was open at the top with a clip guide built in to allow you to load a fixed (and by fixed I mean pinned into the lower by some legal definition) magazine with stripper clips. No idea if it would be possible, but think it would be pretty cool.

Assuming most Americans won't know about it (as it previously had no reason for existing) but in the UK you can get "lever release" AR-15s, where the bolt is automatically held back after each shot, and must be released by a lever where the safety would be (here is one). This would be classed as a manually operated weapon and would hence not be subject to any "Assault Weapon" bans. Something else that would be cool, a pump action AR-15 upper.

Oh well...

CNN has leaked what our Dear Leader will speak about tomorrow.

Nothing too off the mark, "high-cap" mags and such, but according to the AP everything we fear for the most part would require Congressional action.

From the CNN article:

"The president also could immediately appoint a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has been without a permanent chief for six years, Thompson said."

WTF? For real?

Yeah, ever since the first breaking of Fast&Furious, the BATFE has been without a permenant director.

Barry could apoint a director who would do mean things with the Sporting Claus of the GCA '68, but right now, that's just fear mongering, no need for it.

Fast and Furious was only a year or two ago. The director that resigned as a result was also an acting director. Six years ago was still the Bush administration. How bad can the job be?

The President announced his 23 executive orders. I'm actually okay with most of them. Some do bother me though:

"Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

"Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

The NRA opposed both as it could lead to higher insurance rates for gun owners.