Ammo For Sale

« « WATCH: Some one stole a gun out of someone’s holster | Home | Ugh » »

But no one wants to ban your hunting rifles!

A bill to add any rifle or shotgun that accepts detachable magazines to the NFA registry:

(1) by striking ; and (8) a destructive device. and inserting ; (8) a destructive device; and (9) a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun that has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition feeding device.

19 Responses to “But no one wants to ban your hunting rifles!”

  1. pkoning Says:

    Seems to say a Ruger 10/22 is treated as equivalent to a bazooka.
    It’s time to send some of these criminals who propose these things to jail, for felony perjury as well as for conspiracy to infringe constitutional rights.

  2. wizardpc Says:

    Only a matter of time before they do this. The NFA is the only piece of gun control that has ever actually worked in this country, but only because semi-autos were available.

    If it’s the same crime to own a Ruger 10/22 as it is to own a Sten or a Glock 18, well, as Kevin Baker is famous for saying:

    “After the first felony, the rest are free!”

  3. Old NFO Says:

    By hook or crook… dammit…

  4. Ron W Says:

    For now, it appears the NAZIS and Communists just want to ban your mag fed semi-auto hunting rifles. But if they knew that scoped bolt-action rifles .308 and above potentially pose the most danger to tyrants, they will want them banned too.

  5. bob r Says:

    The term ‘ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, …

    A “stripper” clip would easily be considered a “feed” strip. So even rifles like the SKS without a “removable” magazine would meet the definition unless modified to require loading one round at a time.

    As Sarah Hoyt said: “And what they’re doing is tap dancing on a powder keg and calling for more candles to properly illuminate the series.”

  6. SPQR Says:

    Even the tube reloading for 3Gun shotguns would meet that definition.

  7. Jay Eimer Says:

    And my dad had an old Remington deer rifle in 30.06 – I think a 760 IIRC. 4 round detachable box mag. I don’t think they even made anything bigger for that gun.

  8. Anon Says:

    USC Title 18 S 242

    We could put these traitors to death.
    All it would take is a prosecutor with balls,
    And a jury with an understanding of the constitution.

  9. Anon Says:

    @Jay There were 10 rounders available for the 760, but they are rare.

  10. Geoff Says:

    Considering that out of the 400 MILLION or so firearms in the U.S., even if only 10% have a detachable magazine, how do they propose to register 40 MILLION firearms in the NFA? Democrats can’t even think ahead of what their actions will cause.

  11. Geoff Says:

    WHOA! Wait a minute. Would that include my M1 Garand with an en bloc clip? My Savage 64F?
    Stupid cannot be fixed.

  12. JTC Says:

    Listen, if a plastic accessory stock is an MG why not an SG? Yes I know my boy DT is down with the former, still think that’s a ploy for scotus.

  13. docmerlin Says:

    Geoff, the point isn’t to actually collect or register those guns. It is to create more criminals out of people that don’t support them.

  14. docmerlin Says:

    That way when the cops shoot you, because of something routine… he had illegal guns.

  15. wfgodbold Says:

    @Anon

    Wrong.

    First of all, it’s not treason, because treason is defined in the Constitution (Art. III, Section 3).

    Second of all, even if it were treasonous, Art. I, Section 6, Clause 1 states that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

    Representatives and Senators cannot be prosecuted for bills they propose or statements they make on the floor.

  16. Ron W Says:

    @wfgodblod, excellent, the wording of the law according to grammatical construction protects Representatives and Senators. The same applies to the People:

    “Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.” — James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 57.

    So, if one reads the enumerated powers delegated to Congress, there is NO power delegated to the government for any gun control laws pertaining to “the RIGHT People to keep and bear arms”, but only “for governing such Part of them (the Militia) ) as may be EMPLOYED in its service.” And according to the clear wording of the 10th Amendment, without delegated powers, the Federal Government may lawfully do NOTHING.
    Note: “Militia” in the 2nd Amendment sentence references the quote from Article I, Section 8.16 in that it and the rest of the Bill of Rights were added in 1791 to prevent “abuses and usurpations” In context, the Militia is the armed citizenry and the Federal Government only has power for governing those which it EMPLOYS in its service.

  17. Bella Says:

    It shouldn’t be banned but used carefully

  18. Sigivald Says:

    Ron: … the Federalist Papers are not laws or the Constitution, though. They’re useful context and great thoughts about it, but they do not have legal power short of maybe explaining original public meaning.

    (There is no “gun control power”, no.

    But there is an unspecified taxation power; the problem with “gun control via tax” is not “no enumerated power”, it’s “the Second Amendment says you can’t.

    The militia argument is weaker, but not bad.

    But none of that practically matters because nobody, in practice, wants a purely Constitutional government, and those limits will never, ever, ever be applied that way.

    So let’s not act like we live in that fantasy world where lack of an enumerated power to Do Something Popular-ish matters. Because as nice as that world would be, we don’t live in it.

    We live in one where the Federal Government has a lot of power to do things it shouldn’t, and that’s not changing anytime soon.)

  19. Ron W Says:

    Wrote Sigivald, “.. the Federalist Papers are not laws or the Constitution, though. They’re useful context and great thoughts about it, but they do not have legal power short of maybe explaining original public meaning.”

    Yes, I know “the Federalist Papers are not laws” and James Madison, being the Wordsmith of the Constitution, gives an excellent explanation of this matter which was a later placed into law phrase in the 14th Amendment, “the equal protection of the laws”.

    The “militia argument” is supported by the rules of English grammar applied to the 2nd Amendment sentence read in the context of Article I, Section 8.15-16 of the Constitution, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and quotes from the founders like George Mason (after whom is named a university) that “the militia…is the whole People”.

    I wouldn’t say “nobody, in practice wants a purely Constitutional government”. Go around and ask people if they want the Goverment to obey the law (like us) and its officials and agents to uphold their oath to the Constitution according to its wording–as in any other legal contract. I believe most would say yes, they want that. I do.

    But you’re right that perhaps “nobody” in positions of delegated power “want a purely Constitutional government” since it would require to be servants of the People under lawful enumerated delegated power. Since powers are always delegated DOWN from the greater to the lesser. And they consider themselves greater.

    And so, criminals and tyrants ( who want to break the law and rule over others) are what accurately described in your last sentence. Very well-said there.

Used three kinds of generics. I liked the Levitra Pills more, although the others acted quite well. Perhaps it all depends on the characteristics of each organism.