Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

I agree and I'm surprised she's not going after ammo too. 

Because this is about votes and perception not about addressing the problem or fixing anything.

Good luck. The old AWB was pretty weak and easy to get around. I think the run on semi-auto rifles is from the fear that a new one will be passed and actually have some teeth. But the above is a snowball in Death valley... I think.

I'm not opposed to some "control" of semi-auto rifles per se... but I do think at some point there will be a challenge to a ban. Full auto weapons certainly have a place in military use... but not much for civilian persuits. Not that more people would not own them if they could "just because"... but not too many people are tore up over not.

But semi-auto rifles have a purpose for civilians, and they most certainly are the type of weapon the founders intended common people to have for "common defense" and militia use. I'm not so sure an outright ban would stand. I'm not saying they can't be regulated, I'm just saying, IMHO, they are protected by the 2A from outright ban. The last bill effectively banned full auto and not much has been said... but I do not think it applies here. Who knows. I could be wrong.

The way I read it also says that there will be a national gun registry, so in order to keep your grandfathered guns you have to have them inspected and registered to make sure they're legal.

I was also a little surprised that nothing was mentioned about mental health in the background checks.  To me that's one place that both sides can come together on is to expand the depth of background checks.

You really expect our elected officials to understand anything about mental health?

In california the law says something like they require a tool to remove the magazines so the manufacturers put a recessed button that could be depressed with the pointy end of the bullet.  So the bullet was the "tool".

The thumbhole stock is a stock that looks like a regular stock but has a hole in the middle of it for your thumb to go through.  It lets you grip it like a pistol grip.  The idea is to get around the pistol grip restriction.

I'm sure Appa can set us straight... California compliant magazine release. They do not have one. You need a tool to insert and change mags. I thought the "bullet button" was that... but now it seems to be a work around that... maybe install as the tool to defeat. IDK.

It's a workaround for the "detachable" magazine

Well ya, that's all fine... nobody has to go register their weapons... but then they will be in possesion of a banned unregistered weapon and breaking Federal law I assume. So basically keep it in your safe and never let it out.

I personally don't have a huge deal with a registry.  I'm not overly concerned with the government "coming after my guns".  As powerman has said in the past, if they change the laws making my guns illegal I will turn them in, because I am a law abiding citizen.  I won't like it, but I'll obey the law.

In Omaha city limits they have a "registry" for any concealable gun (aka handgun).  According to the city ordinance if you possess a gun in the city limits and it's not registered they can confiscate your gun and charge you.  I have my CCW which supersedes the law for a gun I'm carrying, but if I have it locked in a case in the trunk then it gets dicey.  So, I spend the $15 on every handgun I own and just register them.  I know it goes into the national database and I don't really care.  I'm more worried about them taking my gun and my wife not letting me buy a new one than I am about big brother coming after me. 

The only real rule in CA is that you need a tool to release the mag. Right now the most popular is the bullet button. It covers the release button that has a metal pin that blocks the mag from being released. When the button is on a magnet pulls the pin open allowing the mag to be released. So basically as long as the button is on the release button it works like any other normal rifle.

There ya go.

I really don't want to keep posting on gun threads.  Getting tired of it.  But I disagree with a bunch of this, mainly for two reasons:  complexity and ways to get around it.  I think if you want to keep it easy, simple and agreeable, then possibly something along the lines of this:

• Ban any firearm that has the capacity to hold more than 16 rounds.  Most standard semi-automatic handguns have a 15-round magazine and allow for 1 more in the pipe.  That comprises a majority of the handgun market and would be fair.  No one for target, home defense, sport, hunting, etc. uses a firearm that needs more.  We're talking probably a million-plus semi-auto handguns out there using the 15+1 design.  Shotguns are typically 8 in the tube.  Hunting rifles, even less (4-6 round boxes for bolt-action).  (Sorry Saiga 12-gauge with the 100-round drum owners!  Yeah, it may be uber-cool, but one of those in the hands of an Adam Lanza?  Dread the thought!)
  .
• What to do about rifles?  One of two things:
• Easier:  Don't try to call out the Bushmaster AR-15 vs say, a Ruger 44 or Remington 750 hunting rifle.  All are semi-automatic.  Is it the semi-automatic nature, or the magazine capacity?  How much less dangerous is an AR-15 with a 16-round magazine than a 30-round magazine?  That might be the question.  Don't target the specific gun, try to limit it's destructive potential.  Neuter it, so to say.
• Difficult:  Limit rifles to bolt-action and lever-action only.  The question here being, is the AR-15 so dangerous because it can fire 30 rounds, or that it can fire 30 rounds QUICKLY?  Banning semi-automatic rifles means up to 16 bullets with a bolt or lever action in between each shot.
  .
• Ban certain types of ammunition such as armor piercing, etc.  Anything that wouldn't be used for target, hunting, sport, or simple home defense.  This one should be fairly easy.
  .
• Set a date limit on what is considered "antique".  Say, anything made before 1940 is exempt.  Don't punish collectors.  Sure a 1938 Thompson submachie gun is still extremely dangerous, but in mint condition, it's worth a lot of money.  You don't here about mass killings with these simply because the owners protect their investment and keep them very secured and locked away (mainly for fear of theft).
  .
• Make the backgrouond check process much more stringent and mandatory.  Include mental health screenings.  If someone living in the home where the guns would be kept would fail the mental health screening threshhold, no one in the home would be allowed to possess a firearm.  If it takes 2 months of checks and screenings to make a purchase, it takes 2 months.  Federalize it so that it's the same across all 50 states.
  .
• Include a written and practical exam by a licensed instructor prior to the first purchase.  If we do it for obtaining a drivers license...
  .
• All individual-to-individual sales must go through a broker and go through the same background check process.
  .
• Nothing is grandfathered, it defeats the purpose.

I don't like calling anythign out by name.  It's too easy to get around.  I would prefer to target the spec.  And the most important aspect is the mental health background check.  I still believe Americans have the Constitutional right to purchase and possess a firearm.  But if the process to do so is longer and more complicated to ensure safety, so be it.  You'll still get to have your gun.  You'll just have to go through a lengthier process to prove you are capable and appropriate to have it.

Granted - these are just some brainstorm thoughts.  A place to start.  I'm not cemented on some of it.  It'll take a pragmatic approach in the conversation.  But the most important element I woud say is to keep it simple and keep it common sense.