new rules...........
 

Personally I think that Feinsteins bill will not and can not pass as it is; what is bothersome is the fact that it is likely to be a 'compromise' and we'll get screwed royally. A strict as it was AWB would be irritating, but more and it would be very difficult.

And they will really crack down on ANY small violation. The awful shooting of the firemen had the weapons bought by a 24 yr old woman, I bet they slap her with maximum penalties.

Assault Rifles Ban
 

All I have to say is we have open boarders and drug dealers
can bring all the drugs across our boaders without any trouble
to make a large profit,what is to stop them from doing the same when assault rifles are band here?Just rember they don't
care about our laws and when they do this there will be no
paper work to fill out,or they could buy them from our very
own BATF like they did before and sell them back to us at a
large profit.Food for though.
Thanks,George:evilgrin:

Feinstein's Bill is designed to be outrageous. This way they can back down on certain points, appear to be reasonable people and still achieve their goals.

It is an old politician's trick. Push for 100% when you want 50%-60%.

The goverment frequently uses this tactic when attempting to prosecute somebody. They "Dog Pile" charges onto the case and hope as many as possible stick.

Remember, prohibition has never worked in our society. It just creates a criminal underclass that is well funded, aggressive and less visibly troublesome.

The technique that Doug mentions above can be a politically effective one. You can see how the "lack of compromise" is being peddled on the artificial "Fiscal Cliff" hysteria now.

Many believe that a significant reduction of deficit spending is necessary, yet they are effectively being painted as unreasonable this way. The same technique will be used on gun owners that are against worthless gun bans.

What if the "Fiscal Cliff" is 5 feet high, and nobody has to get injured jumping off?

What if that 5 feet helped prevent a flood of debt from swamping us?

What if any firearms ban would be totally ineffective in reducing crime, and just help create a criminal underclass? That's what the studies quoted by Feinstein show.

When you don't have the facts behind you, artful spin can influence the masses.

We have the facts behind us, and have to effectively counter those techniques.

I don't see compromise on basic rights as being appropriate in our situation.

Marc

What military features does a Luger have? The only thing I can think of is a stock lug, and if it is not listed as a "feature" in the bill, it will not count as one. Let's not give them any ideas.

Geo

Any pistol can have a mag made to hold more than 10 rounds IMO.

Something that my wardens up in Chicago came up with is, they feel any firearm with a military origin should not be in the hands of a civilian, they were designed strictly for military use....that's the mentally behind Chicago politicians. :banghead:

Looks like air travel will be suspended in Chicago also.

I just emailed my state and federal representatives urging them to vote against any firearms restriction legislation.

What annoys me is that the Attorney General of New York State and the Lt Governor of New York State do not accept any emails from constituents; only snail mail. The letters are sitting in my mailbox awaiting pickup tomorrow.

If the NRA wants to 'rally the troops', they should be advertising in women's magazines. There is rarely a day when I visit the local gun shops that I don't see a woman looking, buying, or inquiring about handguns.

I recommend taking a sedative prior to reading this. Wish I had:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...ines-register/

I was thinking of all of this over the recent holidays.

It occurred to me that something we could all do to help would be to "witness" our respect for the 2nd amendment to all of our friends, including especially those that might not know we engage in shooting sports and collecting.

I did this at several holiday gatherings.

It could be something as simple as saying to a friend that respects you, "You know - the 2nd amendment and our right to bear arms is really important to me..."

If it leads to a constructive conversation - great. That person now can personify gun rights with someone that they know and trust.

If it's challenged, at least you can calmly explain your position. You may choose to disagree, but in the end the friend knows someone responsible that all this gun control nonsense will directly and deeply affect.

Marc

I deny any predictability in politics, but there are many hurdles on the way to enacting any new Federal gun control laws:

1. Economics: we have enough guns to arm each American citizen, resident alien, and illegal immigrant. Confiscation without compensation is politically impossible, whereas confiscation with compensation would be economically ruinous. Besides, the state of global economy leaves little room for compounding the Congressional constipation that hold captive any possible means of its resuscitation, by yet another polemical bottleneck.
2. History: though I am far from the absurdity of their right wing anarchism, I admire the panache with which the Tea Party has commandeered the House of Representatives in the wake of the enactment of Obamacare. Moreover, our elected officials are by law old enough to remember the Republican Revolution ushered in by the 1994 AWB, and preponderantly most mindful of remaining in office. Any other motives they might have would be trumped by concerns for reëlection.
3. Law: the SCOTUS rulings of the last four years imply that keeping and bearing effective small arms in common use is Constitutionally protected, and their regulation cannot be upheld but by passing at least the intermediate scrutiny test, through showing that it furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. Black rifles and handguns, the most likely targets of gun banners, are especially unlikely to pass this test in virtue of their utility and ubiquity. (Ironically, the former ascended to their status of the most popular long guns in the U.S. as a result of the 1994 AWB.) Moreover, Justice Roberts’ reading of the Commerce Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), appears to leave as little room for the Congress to debar Americans from owning certain goods, as it does for it to require their purchase of broccoli.
4. Stupidity: no idea is so sensible that our political debate cannot dumb it down fatally, and will not do so inevitably. Ideas most likely to elicit a consensus, such as criminal liability for unsafe storage of firearms, can and will be reduced to prospective measures repugnant to most gun owners, even as they remain inadequate to most nanny statists.

That said, the Gun Ban Games will be loads of fun to live through.

A wonderful treatise !!!!!!!

Michael Zeleny for President in 2016!

Several state and national gun rights organizations have banded together to oppose any efforts to enact more restrictive gun laws.

The coalition's objective is to impress a "no compromise is appropriate" position on these issues.

You can learn more about this, and Emails you can send your federal legislative representatives here:

http://grnc.org/index.php/grnc-alerts-a ... he-gun-ban

Marc

UPDATE....This Bill passed out of committee yesterday and now goes to the State congress critters. No firearms with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds, those having them, when and if this Bill becomes law will have to register them directly with the SP and pay a fee. They will not be able to be fired on any range unless the range is operated by an FFL license person and the SP has it registered. What the fine will be, I've no idea. I have two, a Browning BDA 380 and a Browning HP with 103 Waffenamp w/tangent sight and w/holster. Almost the creme de creme of my collection.

Hmmm.
It never changes,registration is always the first step to confiscation.
Bob

UPDATE: There were two Bills that came out of committee and has moved to the state Congress.

The first proposal would ban the possession, delivery, sale and transfer of semiautomatic handguns and rifles. Gun groups say this kind of restriction would be so expansive as to affect most gun owners in the state.

A second bill, introduced by Democratic state Sen. Dan Kotowski, would limit ammunition magazines to 10 or fewer rounds.

The two pieces of legislation are being supported by a majority of state Democratic lawmakers as well as Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel, the mayor of one of the most gun-controlled cities in the country, praised the committee passage and says even stronger regulations are required to protect communities. He added that there is a need "for common-sense laws that provide the residents of our cities with the safety they deserve."

A shining example is Chicago that had over 500 homocides in 2012.
I can't see either Bills passing, just too many gun owners in Illinois, around 1.5 million and that's the "registered" gun owners.

UPDATE: Both Bills were tabled due to not enough votes to pass. Speculation is, the Bills will be re-introduced after the new legislation is sworn in later this month and might have a better chance of passing. Alot of pressure is being put on legislators by gun owners, especially pistols owners.