Will High Capacity Mags & Assault Rifles Be Banned? What Do You Think?

I don't *think* an AWB will get through. But I have a feeling they might get the high-cap ban through. That being said, I don't understand what purpose it would serve or how it would be effective. There are millions of those mags currently in circulation. It would take decades to get to a point where they start to dwindle in any appreciable way and they won't be able to confiscate or stop people from deploying them in concealed carry, etc. Based on ineffectiveness alone, it should be thrown out if it ever hits the floor. Still, there might be a few pussy republicans who will vote it in to placate the uninformed morons.

I think universal background checks are a strong possibility for legislation which might pass Congress, and possibly "high capacity" magazines (also referred to as just plain "magazines" by people who aren't idiots). That being said, I'm still considering selling some of my 30rd steel mags as long as "CTD" has ridiculous prices on them (see http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/MAG-068 )

No ban.

This is just an empty threat by a desparate president who wants the republicans to increase the debt ceiling(which they will ineviatebly do anyway).

Also wouldn't this have to make it through congress?

An AWB isn't within the presidents executive powers.

Originally Posted by MrWesson

No ban.

This is just an empty threat by a desparate president who wants the republicans to increase the debt ceiling(which they will ineviatebly do anyway).

Also wouldn't this have to make it through congress?

An AWB isn't within the presidents executive powers.

*If* Harry Reid introduces the AWB in the Senate, and it passes, I highly doubt it will pass the house. I think he'll probably introduce the high-cap mag crap, which might barely pass. Fingers crossed that it doesn't though.

I'm all for the universal background checks if:

1) There is no registration

2) No other records are kept, aside from a "yes" or "no" answer to whether one can buy

3) They don't investigate both parties during the background check. Only the buyer, not the seller, so they can't try and confiscate the weapon based on a possible mistake

4) Must be free. I'll use the system, but adding to fee to it makes it a tax. And that I don't support. Right now, we can transfer stuff for free. Requiring the background check would mean that the Fed. Govt. gets a cut of it, which I'm opposed to. I'm assuming that when dealers conduct the $5 check, that that is used to cover the fee the FFL is charged, not because they want to gouge another $5 out of a customer. If it's a new gun from the dealer, fine...that's what it is now. If it's a sale between two citizens, the check should be free.

Originally Posted by david05111

*If* Harry Reid introduces the AWB in the Senate, and it passes, I highly doubt it will pass the house. I think he'll probably introduce the high-cap mag crap, which might barely pass. Fingers crossed that it doesn't though.

I'm all for the universal background checks if:

1) There is no registration

2) No other records are kept, aside from a "yes" or "no" answer to whether one can buy

3) They don't investigate both parties during the background check. Only the buyer, not the seller, so they can't try and confiscate the weapon based on a possible mistake

4) Must be free. I'll use the system, but adding to fee to it makes it a tax. And that I don't support. Right now, we can transfer stuff for free. Requiring the background check would mean that the Fed. Govt. gets a cut of it, which I'm opposed to. I'm assuming that when dealers conduct the $5 check, that that is used to cover the fee the FFL is charged, not because they want to gouge another $5 out of a customer. If it's a new gun from the dealer, fine...that's what it is now. If it's a sale between two citizens, the check should be free.

But he wants to loosen the HIPPA requirements for giving confidential medical information to the feds . . and he wants to make the AG re-evaluate the list of people who shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

So now imagine under your system: you buy a gun as a gift for your wife . . since you're transferring it, you need to go through the background check on your wife. That background check now looks to see what kind of mental related treatment your wife may have received. Let's say she was prescribed antidepressants briefly a few years ago to treat post-partum depression. You and her both know that she's sane and not a criminal, but the system spits out a "fail" because of her prescription history.

F that.

Originally Posted by brew

But he wants to loosen the HIPPA requirements for giving confidential medical information to the feds . . and he wants to make the AG re-evaluate the list of people who shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

So now imagine under your system: you buy a gun as a gift for your wife . . since you're transferring it, you need to go through the background check on your wife. That background check now looks to see what kind of mental related treatment your wife may have received. Let's say she was prescribed antidepressants briefly a few years ago to treat post-partum depression. You and her both know that she's sane and not a criminal, but the system spits out a "fail" because of her prescription history.

F that.

Yeah, that sucks. If I recall correctly, there was an exemption for transfers of immediate family members in the proposals. So a transfer to, say your wife, wouldn't require a background check.