Ammo For Sale

« « Media matters doesn’t matter | Home | Was the nailgun on the approved list of California nailguns? » »

Grain of salt, not included

A supposed list of guns that the Obama administration wants to ban. Color me skeptical. Such a bill wouldn’t make it in the house.

12 Responses to “Grain of salt, not included”

  1. Settles Says:

    Dude, my gun is gonna be SOOOO illegal. I am going to increase my street cred by 10.

  2. Dave Says:

    Hell, I don’t think that bill would make it though the senate.

  3. Siergen Says:

    @Dave, Since when does Dear Leader worry about getting his policies passed by the legislature? He’ll do it by Executive Order, probably right after some nut-job does a mass-shooting in a gun-free zone…

  4. Joe Says:

    As I understand it, this list is actually from a proposed 2004 ban.

  5. longwatch Says:

    I hate to see something that Alan Korwin put out in 2009 get recycled again. We need to focus on current events not unproductively regurgitate out of date info.

  6. Burnt Toast Says:

    M1 Carbine,
    Sturm Ruger Mini-14,

    Heh, no M-1 or M-14?

  7. countertop Says:

    As credible as the lists author. Or the first “gun rights” group he lists at the end.

  8. MAJ Mike Says:

    Hmmmm. I just skimmed the list, but the only firearms I may retain might be my Springfield ’03A3 and my Mauser Kar98. That includes all of my pistols. Didn’t check for shotguns, mine are all Mossburg 500’s, one a mil-spec riot gun with a bayonet lug.

    Guess I’ll be an outlaw. I’ll not run. I’ll not submit. I aim to misbehave.

  9. Bubblehead Les Says:

    You’re correct, it wouldn’t pass the House. However, if the next Senate gets the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty, I’m worried that it would pass. 55 Dems, 67 needed to Pass, I’m sure Harry Reid can scrounge up a dozen or so RINOS who’ll vote for it (all in the “Spirit of Bipartisanship,” of course). And I’m sure there’ll be a Clause in there that restricts Private Firearms Ownership to “Legitimate State-Approved Hunting and Sporting Use ONLY Guns.” That’ll allow Obama to issue an Edict, saying that he’s just complying with our Treaty Obligations.

    And the House can just sit and spin their wheels.

  10. Geodkyt Says:

    Ratified treaties have the force of law — if we ratify a treaty that requires us to prohibit certain things, those prohibitions are legal, and ATF will just institute them by administrative fiat.

    Of course, even if teh Senate rejects the UN Arms treaty, Obama would likely still try and rule it into place via administrative fiat, just as he has done with the failed Kyoto Treaty.

    It’s like Feinstein exploring how ATF can “determine” semiautos are actually Title II firearms, thus effectively banning them.

    But THAT path would actually be even easier for Obama to use than the UN Gun Ban Treaty. . . follow me here. . .

    All it would take is an ATF “determination” that “bump firing” is “a single activation of the trigger”, thus anything that can be (or is “readily restorable” to convert to allow it to be) “bump fired” is actually a “machinegun” and ban ALL semiauto receivers (“receiver of a machinegun”, under 1968 GCA) as being in violation of 922(o) (under the 1986 FOPA), since they were not registered as transferrable machineguns before May 1986. . . even if they did allow back-dated registration, any guns imported after 1968 would automatically be “pre-May dealer samples”, even if they allowed the current owners to register and retain them — they could only transfer them to an active FFL/SOT afterwards.

    When it gets to SCOTUS (and it WOULD get to SCOTUS), all that matters is if Obama has had the opportunity to replace any one of the Heller Five with one of his appointees.

    House Republicans? You’ll note that this path doesn’t involve the House AT ALL, and doesn’t directly involve the Senate, outside a confirmation vote — they ALREADY passed the enabling laws in 1968 and 1986!

    You think they could sustain an impeachment AND conviction of a sitting president in this political environment? HAH! We couldn’t sustain a conviction of a president AFTER he confessed to committing perjury while in office, with a Hell of a lot less ideologically hard-core Democratic caucus!

  11. Firehand Says:

    You could simplify matters quite a bit:
    “Mr. President, exactly what guns do you wish to ban?”
    “All of them.”

  12. Chas Says:

    Wasn’t that 19th century civil war enough? The more you look at the civil war, the more you realize that it was a horror, conducted under conditions of extreme poverty, by gaunt-faced, hollow-cheeked, unsmiling men dressed in ragged clothing. Yet, the modern-day commie libs are hurrying us towards another one, just as they did last time. When will they ever learn? Never, I suppose.