HR-1808 AW ban

M

Metal god

New member
Anyone keeping track on HR 1808 . Seems to be the same old wish list with a few extras like adding the mag limit as well as instead of using a Flash hider as a feature . They have changed it to a threaded barrel and now includes fixed magazines . That is a significant change IMO . That starts including many other firearms usually not considered an AW .

Thoughts ? https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text

I just read it now includes pistols with certain features . No holding back anymore I guess haha .
 
Last edited:
Despite the constant press coverage of the "gun violence" problem, I believe the anti gun people are expecting to take a big hit to their political power in the next election, and are throwing everything on their wish list against the wall in the hopes that some of it sticks before they get voted out of office.

Pushing the AWB in 94 (during the summer before an election) is what cost the Dems their 40 year dominance of Congress, and despite the press's claim otherwise, they admitted it, amongst themselves, at any rate.

Personally, I expect this attempt to be another failure, at everything except the proponent's "virtue signaling" to the radical elements of their political bases.
 
"Gun violence" is violence perpetrated with a gun. Remove the gun from "gun violence" and what do you have? "Violence."

Your assignment for Monday, class, is to Google "school+attacks+China"

In China alone, there have been numerous attacks on schools just since 2010. The result has been 90 dead and 473 injured. The vast majority of the attacks, and the casualties, were due to weapons other than guns.
 
I'm kind of surprised at the lack of attention this proposed bill is getting, the most I've really seen has been from the Firearm Policy Coalition. I watched most of the judiciary committee hearing, it was about as bad as could be expected. They certainly put some more effort into writing this one than the one in 94.
 
Did the Ruger Mini-14 slide past this bill too?
Click to expand...

Yes, if it has the standard wood stock.

According to Rep. Nadler, the M1 Garand is "far less lethal" than the AR-15, which is why it wouldn't be banned under his bill.

It's also worth noting this particular exchange:

Bishop: "Is there any Democrat that would dispute that this bill would ban weapons that are in common use?"

Nadler: "That's the point of the bill."

Bishop: "So it is the point of the bill to ban guns that are in common use?"

Nadler: "The problem is they are in common use."
Click to expand...

If that phrase rings any bells, it's because Heller was very specific in protecting the right to own weapons in common use. If passed, this bill would never survive SCOTUS scrutiny.
 
Tom Servo said:
Did the Ruger Mini-14 slide past this bill too?
Click to expand...
Yes, if it has the standard wood stock.
Click to expand...
Correction: The one listed is the Mini-14 Tactical Rifle M14-20CF. I don't see anything with that model designation on Ruger's web site, so I don't know what it's supposed to refer to. There are five models of the Tactical Rifle, all of which have 20-round magazines, all of which have 16.12" barrels, and one of which has a wood stock.

The Mini-14 Ranch Rifle includes 11 models, 8 of which seem to have wood stocks, all of which have 18.5" barrels, and all but two of which have 5-round magazines.
 
Why are retired police officers allowed to possess these dangerous, so-called "assault weapons" when the rest of us are not? Once they retire, they are no longer sworn peace officers.
 
I don’t think what size mag a gun comes with matters much . The key phrase in the bill is “capable of excepting mags that hold more then 10 rounds “ . To me this pretty much includes all firearms with an external mag . Even if a firearm is so unwanted that there is no aftermarket parts . It would still be “capable” of excepting a mag that holds more then 10 rounds even if none are in existence at the time .

The threaded barrel wording is problematic for many that chose to go featureless in states that had the traditional AW ban wording in effect already . In one way is that some went featureless in hopes the AW ban would be shot down and there firearms can be put back in the configuration they were intended .

That and the fixed mag portion as well . I helped a friend put together a fixed mag AR that needs the upper and lower to be opened in order to release the mag fitting the definition of “fixed” mag . As far as I can tell the wording in this bill finally paints modern sporting rifles into a corner. It only took them 30yrs to learn how to write into legislation what they’ve wanted all along .
 
Last edited:
Why are retired police officers allowed to possess these dangerous, so-called "assault weapons" when the rest of us are not?
Click to expand...

Because if you write privileges into law for certain special interest groups. it increases the chance they will vote for you.....

Once they retire, they are no longer sworn peace officers.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't give a rodent's posterior if they are sworn or not.

Raising your hand and saying some words means what, today?? About squat, it seems....(actually, to be fair, taking an oath means what it has always meant, and that is entirely dependent on the integrity of the individual under the oath)

Cops take an oath. Every Congressman takes an oath. The President, and VP take oaths...the list is long, and while some people do uphold their oaths, others....not so much...:rolleyes:

I have never felt it was right to grant people special treatment because of their job. And especially their former job....

Various things while on duty, /in office, yes, but special allowances for the person, NOT the office, I don't agree with.
 
Many thanks to metal god for posting the proposed legislation.

It's hard to digest all the impacts of the bill because of its complexity and because we don't have a copy of the existing US Code, which is being amended by this bill, but I think Aguila Blanca is correct. Other than the specific model which he cited, the Mini 14's are exempt, as long as they don't have a telescoping or folding stock, and don't have pistol grips.

What I found interesting is that the mini 14, and M1 carbine are exempt, but my Remington 597 is not. Because it has a detachable magazine and pistol grip (it came with a factory thumbhole stock and thumbhole stocks are considered pistol grips under this proposed act), my .22 LR 597 would become a grandfathered assault rifle. Also, my ruger SR-22 would become an assault pistol because of the detachable magazine and threaded barrel.

Additionally, I can't find where the act provides for the legal transfer of grandfathered assault weapons and high capacity magazines upon the death of the owner. This is not an arcane question because I'm 75 and the demographics of gun owners tend to be older. If I drop over dead while mowing the lawn, does my wife become a felon because she now possesses grandfathered assault weapons without a legal transfer through a licensed gun dealer and background check? Or if we both die, does my daughter, who is the estate executor, become a felon?

It seems like there could be many unintended consequences or questions about this proposed federal legislation. Or perhaps the consequences are intended? (rhetorical question)
 
Last edited:
hammie said:
Additionally, I can't find where the act provides for the legal transfer of grandfathered assault weapons and high capacity magazines upon the death of the owner. This is not an arcane question because I'm 75 and the demographics of gun owners tend to be older. If I drop over dead while mowing the lawn, does my wife become a felon because she now possesses grandfathered assault weapons without a legal transfer through a licensed gun dealer and background check? Or if we both die, does my daughter, who is the estate executor, become a felon?
Click to expand...
You can't find it because I'm pretty sure it's not there. Listening to some of the Democrats talking about the bill, one of them (I don't remember which) said something about the bill gradually reducing the number of these dreaded "assault weapons." Basically, I think they know they can't get away with requiring us to turn them in immediately but, by not making any provision for transfers after the bill passes, as we die off (and I'm older than you, so I'm acutely aware of this), they'll gradually disappear.

Perhaps one of the attorneys on this board would be willing to comment on how (or if) the bill would affect firearms trusts. Could we get around the lack of any provision for transfers, even by inheritance, at least for a generation or two by immediately putting everything named and described in the bill into a firearms trust and naming younger relatives as members of the trust?

NOTE: I am NOT saying this is a solution. I don't know anything about firearms trusts because I was advised by an attorney several years ago that in my situation a firearms trust wasn't a good idea, so I don't really know much about them other than that they exist. I am asking if it may be a solution.
 
@aguila blanca: As I said above, it's hard to accurately digest all of this, but I think the sale and transfer of grandfathered weapons would still be okay. Sec3(a)(2) allows for the sale and transfer of existing, lawfully possessed assault weapons, which are owned at the time of enactment. So, other than normal attrition losses, the pool of grandfathered weapons would remain fixed. Of course, that can all be easily changed by future legislation, i.e. "We need to close the loopholes".

Sec (5) addresses the transfer of grandfathered weapons. To do the sale or transfer, the weapon must be in the actual custody of a licensed gun dealer, but there are no provisions for temporary custody by a transferee in an inheritance/estate situation. So, I have no idea how it would all work.

All I know is that if this passes, I will have several "weapons of war", which I never even remotely considered to be such. Oh well, I guess I can re-stock and change the thumbhole stock on my remington, .22 LR, 597.
 
Last edited:
Lets not have any of us fool ourselves . Even if the grandfather clause allows for the sale and transfer of the existing so-called assault weapons . Future legislatures can simply amend this bill/law to exclude the transfer later as California did . As of right now many Californians cannot hand down there described assault weapons to their children or grandchildren. Furthermore California enacted an assault weapons registration so for those who were dumb enough to register there firearms as Assault weapons they know you have them and your children and grandchildren cannot take possession of such firearms . I chose to go featureless or disassemble rather than register in the hopes that it would get overturned someday . That day appears to be closer than ever but then again I’m in California , nuff said .
 
Last edited:
Oh well, I guess I can re-stock and change the thumbhole stock on my remington, .22 LR, 597.
Click to expand...

Which, may buy you some time, but only until the next generation of laws gets passed.

What amazes me is that the Fed, (Congress) is still fixated on the features a gun has, or doesn't have. I suppose we should be grateful, that they haven't "wised up" as much as some state level gun control fanatics have.

In the state I live in, a couple years ago, the law redefined EVERY semi auto rifle in the state as a "semiautomatic assault rifle". EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Doesn't matter what features the gun has, or doesn't. Age doesn't matter.
Caliber doesn't matter. Magazine capacity doesn't matter. Pistol grips, folding stocks, flash suppressors, don't matter. Detachable or fixed magazines DON'T MATTER....

All that matters is that it is semi automatic, and a rifle, that makes it a "semiautomatic assault rifle" under the law, and a host of special regs and requirements kick in before you are allowed to buy one.

Its surprising that the "usual suspects" in Congress haven't already taken that approach. Rest assured that at some point, they will...and when they do, no one's property is safe...
 
44 AMP said:
In the state I live in, a couple years ago, the law redefined EVERY semi auto rifle in the state as a "semiautomatic assault rifle". EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Click to expand...

Incrementalism is the standard process for gun control. If they tried for their ultimate goal - banning firearms - in one go they'd never get it passed.

The reason they are so desperate to get an assault weapon ban is to get some sort of ban on "weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes". Once the have a category of banned weapons, they'll add more things to it and / or expand the definition. First "assault weapons". Then all semiautos. Then scoped bolt action "sniper rifles", that are "Gasp! - even more deadly than assault rifles!".

Rinse and repeat.
 
Quote:
Why are retired police officers allowed to possess these dangerous, so-called "assault weapons" when the rest of us are not?
Because if you write privileges into law for certain special interest groups. it increases the chance they will vote for you.....

And to think it was signed into law by a republican pres....cool
Quote:
Once they retire, they are no longer sworn peace officers.
Personally, I don't give a rodent's posterior if they are sworn or not.

And we who have served and have more enemies than friends who want us dead; most likely do not care what is wrong with your little posterior.

Raising your hand and saying some words means what, today?? About squat, it seems....(actually, to be fair, taking an oath means what it has always meant, and that is entirely dependent on the integrity of the individual under the oath)
From the first continental arm to the present day, and oath has always been and will always be as good as the person swearing the oath. Nothing new here.

Cops take an oath. Every Congressman takes an oath. The President, and VP take oaths...the list is long, and while some people do uphold their oaths, others....not so much...
Redundant; don't you think?

I have never felt it was right to grant people special treatment because of their job. And especially their former job....
Glad that is only your belief.
Lot of jobs come with perks while working and after retirement. In many of our cases it is due to the simple fact we made a living out of pissing people off. BAD people, people with long memories, long reaches, who want only one thing for us...DEATH as soon as possible.
Chances of me coming into contact with one of these a-holes is slime, but not impossible even though I am literally no longer the person I was. It could happen, the older i get the less likely. And I did not retired from a local, county, state LE job, I retired from a Federal Agency that sort of got around a lot. And no I did not wear a suit and tie.

Various things while on duty, /in office, yes, but special allowances for the person, NOT the office, I don't agree with.
Cool, I have never agreed with half of what you have said either.

Now that I have managed to upset someone with over 25K posts, a high ranking staff member (I wonder does that carry privileges others don't have?) I will exit this forum. Never been a high poster, never would have been since I have zero in common with 99 percent of those here.
Therefore, this is my last post, I will formerly request my sign on ID RETG (stood for Retired G) be removed, and I will move on. Admittedly, this site did give me some good laughs at times, but I can get those easily watch CNN or Tucker Carlson.

khoda hafez
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top