Giffords Seeks Restrictions/Ban on Muzzleloaders

Reasonable:
It is “reasonable" that all employees of any government organization to be required to be truthful, regardless of the issue.
I consider it "reasonable" that appropriate punishment be afforded to any bureaucrat who materially lies or misleads, as solely determined by a jury of randomly selected peers. Doubly for those who are elected.

If it's a misdemeanor to lie to the cops, and a felony to lie to a grand jury, shouldn't it be up to a capital offense to lie to the American people, depending on the severity of the lie?
 
Last edited:
Sorry TXAZ, all our congress critters are immune from prosecution while they serve themselves in office or in any official capacity and during transportation to or from their job.
We have allowed them to become royalty. Now we either put up with it or change it within the legal system or begin a process of doing away with it. (or them)
 
Yea I know Shootist, I worked for the Chairman of the House Appropriations committee a long time ago.

Not all, but from what I’ve seen the majority of Congress persons are crooks by definitions you and I have to live by.
 
If we could ban Congress the U S would be a much better place. A bunch of grandstanding, do nothing, egotistical liars. They are interested solely in their own betterment.
 
If it shoots too big, ban it!
If it shoots too small, ban it!
If it shoots too fast, ban it!
If it shoots too slow (muzzleloaders), ban it!

Do note the common theme...

If it shoots, ... ban it!
 
JWT said:
If we could ban Congress the U S would be a much better place. A bunch of grandstanding, do nothing, egotistical liars. They are interested solely in their own betterment.
Click to expand...


I've never heard such a concise statement about politicians...
 
A bunch of grandstanding, do nothing, egotistical liars.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this, in part, at least.

If they DID NOTHING, we wouldn't have the mess we have today.

And while politician bashing is a time honored tradition and often true, it adds nothing substantial to the discussion.

back on the topic of muzzle loaders, I read the article and watched the video, and a couple of interesting points arose. One of the big ones (from the video) is how clearly the people proposing the laws do not understand the things they are seeking to ban.

Two points in particular seemed to be the reason that NOW they want to ban muzzleloaders, first, it seems someone wants to, or is making a "silencer" for muzzle loaders, taking advantage of a "loophole" in the law, and second, that being .50 caliber somehow makes them a terrible weapon of mass destruction.

Now, there have been .50 caliber, and LARGER muzzle loaders since the invention of muzzle loaders, and here we are talking about those modern weapons of mass muzzle loading destruction that have only been around for about the last 600 years!

Boggles my mind that only NOW have they discovered a danger...:rolleyes:

Apparently they think everything .50 caliber is equal to the .50BMG round, at the least. I do hope no one tells them that the 12ga (yes, that's right, the very one duckhunters and POLICE use every day) is actually over .70 caliber!!!
They'll probably wet themselves is they knew that...

now, back to the silencer "loophole". I got to thinking about this, and realized, the amazing thing is, that no one had ever tried it before.

Consider, under current Federal law, muzzleloaders are NOT firearms. State laws are different, but the Fed decided, decades ago, muzzle loaders were too antique, and therefore are exempt from modern firearms law. Legally, to the Fed, they are not firearms.

SO, a "silencer" on a muzzle loader is not a device designed to alter the sound of a firearm. Because its not ON a "firearm" under Fed law.

I, personally would not want to be the test case, but it is curious to me why no one explored this before...

it seems like it would be a regulated item, after all, all one would have to do is show how the muzzle loader silencer could be mounted on a firearm, and therefore, falls under the NFA 1934.

HOWEVER, I can also see the counter argument, as the silencer law is based on intent, not actual function. And since the intent is not to use the device on a firearm (under the Fed definition of such) the case can be argued.

Of course, it is a battle of semantics and definition of terms, but then, that's what most of our law is, now isn't it??
 
44AMP, it is fairly simple. Make the suppressor integral to a muzzle loading rifle (federally not a firearm), and it is not possible for it to be used on a (federally defined) firearm. Car mufflers are not banned by the NFA either, since they are not attached to firearms.
 
Michael Bloomberg's pet group Moms Demand Action is currently hemorrhaging leadership due to infighting, so he's thrown his money behind Giffords' latest rebranding. There's a chilling quote on their strategy here:

We can sit back and bring these issues up after something horrible happens, or maybe we can just take a fresh look and … anticipate what might be used in the next shooting and try to create a regulatory structure that makes it harder for criminals to use them.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, there's no real outrage surrounding muzzleloaders and AR-15 pistol braces, so there's no emotional leverage for them to use. Still, they've made their strategy clear, and we need to watch for regulations on this stuff being added to other bills.
 
I find it . . . . perhaps ironic, most certainly hypocritial, that the antigun groups have spent decades arguing that muzzleloaders are the ONLY firearm protected by the 2A and, suddenly, that's a "loophole."
 
They might be shocked to learn that most of the muzzle loaders used in the revolution were about .75 caliber. The home grown rifles averaged around .36 but don't tell them that. A lot of the arms used by the regular army were captured Brown Bess from the British or supplied by the French. Big bore.
 
I always found it amusing, that in NC black powder firearms aren't considered to be... firearms.

It's not like we fought a bunch of wars with them or anything.
 
Spats McGee said:
I find it . . . . perhaps ironic, most certainly hypocritial, that the antigun groups have spent decades arguing that muzzleloaders are the ONLY firearm protected by the 2A and, suddenly, that's a "loophole."
Click to expand...
"Loophole" is defined by them as, "anything we haven't gotten around to yet." They made a deliberate concession when authoring the Brady Act, that it would only apply to transfers from dealers to nonlicensees. It wouldn't have passed otherwise.

Then, before the ink was dry on the President's signature, Schumer started calling the exemption of prior transfers a loophole. The simple rule of thumb is this: as soon as the word "loophole" crawls past their lips, try are utterly lying.
 
I guess all of those Amish gangbangers are doing drive-by shootings with their horse drawn carriages using black powder guns.

It's for the children!!
 
To me, it means "legal."
Click to expand...
That's the thing, though. There aren't really any loopholes in our federal gun laws.

Federal law explicitly exempts muzzleloaders at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3):

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Click to expand...

That doesn't meet the definition of "loophole," whether it be legal or Mirriam Webster.

It just makes a better soundbite to say "we're removing a loophole" than to say "we're reversing a longstanding exemption that we originally agreed to."
 
No one needs people who want to ban things based on their idea of what someone else needs!

I've always thought that the very concept that things "no one needs" should be illegal is the very opposite of Liberty and Freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top