Interesting firearms stuff

46er

Piney
Mar 24, 2004
8,837
2,144
Coastal NJ
I was just reading that the state of Montana recently passed a law that excludes all firearms and ammunition manufactured in that state from any federal firearm laws. I think a couple other states have done the same and more are considering it. This might get interesting.
 

RednekF350

Piney
Feb 20, 2004
5,057
3,328
Pestletown, N.J.
I was just reading that the state of Montana recently passed a law that excludes all firearms and ammunition manufactured in that state from any federal firearm laws. I think a couple other states have done the same and more are considering it. This might get interesting.

Probably in response to some recent rumblings from the Obama camp about proposals taht would make reloading a federal crime.
We really need the Government to get more involved in our lives to keep us all safe!
The Demoncrats will have no problem with that.
Keep your NRA dues current.
They're going to need the money during these next 4 years.
 

46er

Piney
Mar 24, 2004
8,837
2,144
Coastal NJ
It might be more of a story if Montana had any major firearms manufacturers within the states borders, but they don't. The other states are Alaska and Texas. A friend from the Flathead Valley is sending me some info on what's going on. Can't wait to read it :jd:
 

PINEY MIKE

Explorer
Jan 30, 2009
707
25
Bamber Lake
Let me start by saying Im definately bi-partisan, but being a union worker, I always tend to lean democrat. That being said, I really dont see the Democratic party trying to ban all guns or anything close to that speculation.. thats bs. Im all for outlawing automatic guns for the public. Tell me one good reason why people need them. They get in the hands of the wrong people and innocent people die because of it. No one hunts with them, so there shouldnt be an issue with hunters. One might argue they're good for protection, but if they were outlawed to own, your chances of coming face to face with one in times of crime would be much slimmer. Im pro firearms and a gun owner myself, but I draw the line at automatics and understand what our administration is trying to do.
 

MarkBNJ

Piney
Jun 17, 2007
1,875
73
Long Valley, NJ
www.markbetz.net
Automatic weapons are already illegal without federal licensing. Semi-automatic weapons are legal as long as they don't look all black and menacing and have rambo-like plastic attachments that make Barbara Boxer feel intimidated.
 

imkms

Explorer
Feb 18, 2008
604
242
SJ and SW FL
I'm pro firearms and a gun owner myself, but I draw the line at automatics and understand what our administration is trying to do.
I am not opposed to banning of automatic weapons either, but some of the steps taken in the "HR 45 Blair Holt Firearms Act" appear to be making it a major PIA to get a firearm and to renew it (although banning of automatics is not in the bill). There are new penalties involved, some of which make sense, others that do not. In any case, it sure looks like the right to bear arms will become much more difficult.
Read the full bill here.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45
 

wis bang

Explorer
Jun 24, 2004
235
2
East Windsor
I am not opposed to banning of automatic weapons either, but some of the steps taken in the "HR 45 Blair Holt Firearms Act" appear to be making it a major PIA to get a firearm and to renew it (although banning of automatics is not in the bill). There are new penalties involved, some of which make sense, others that do not. In any case, it sure looks like the right to bear arms will become much more difficult.
Read the full bill here.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45

Automatics are not legal without a NFA class three tax stamp for each one; same as supressors [scilencer is an inaccurate term] something that your garden variety criminal won't bother with anyway...we don't need more legislation, just prosecutors to enforce the existing laws! Anyone using a firearm to commit a crime shouldn't be out on the street w/ a plea bargan!
 

wis bang

Explorer
Jun 24, 2004
235
2
East Windsor
Automatic weapons are already illegal without federal licensing. Semi-automatic weapons are legal as long as they don't look all black and menacing and have rambo-like plastic attachments that make Barbara Boxer feel intimidated.

Actually the AWB expired so the 'black' rifles are legal 'cept in NJ...since the election they are selling. Some places they can't keep them in stock despite quadrupling the prices! Large capacity mnagazines are being sold again too 'cept in NJ...Should the stuff hit the fan; MA, NYC & NJ won't stand a chance...

Ammunition is being sold as soon as it hits the shelves too! Certian re-loading components [primers] are real scarce too; lots of panic buying going on.
 

RednekF350

Piney
Feb 20, 2004
5,057
3,328
Pestletown, N.J.
Let me start by saying Im definately bi-partisan, but being a union worker, I always tend to lean democrat. That being said, I really dont see the Democratic party trying to ban all guns or anything close to that speculation.. thats bs. Im all for outlawing automatic guns for the public. Tell me one good reason why people need them. They get in the hands of the wrong people and innocent people die because of it. No one hunts with them, so there shouldnt be an issue with hunters. One might argue they're good for protection, but if they were outlawed to own, your chances of coming face to face with one in times of crime would be much slimmer. Im pro firearms and a gun owner myself, but I draw the line at automatics and understand what our administration is trying to do.

Well Mike, all you need to do is look at any anti-gun legislation throughout recent history and you will see 95%- 100% democrat sponsorship and support of such bills.
My daddy was a union man too and had to grit his teeth every time he had to vote democrat for his job.

The fact that you think no one should have an automatic weapon because no one hunts with them is slightly off base.
First, as others have already posted, full automatics are not legal now except for very tightly controlled permitting under exceptional circumstances.
Semi automatic weapons are far more common and get thrown in under all of the assault weapons bans.

Colt Ar-15's, Ruger mini-14's and Bushmasters are all lumped in with assault wepaons because of how they look more than for how they operate.
Out west these are very common hunting weapons as they are strong, simple and durable and of the appropriate calibers (.223) for hunting.

I am a board member of a 650 memeber sportsman club that was incorporated in 1938.
A lot of our members are WWII, Korean and Vietnam war veterans that proudly served their country.
These men enjoy shooting military weapons and they participte in matches and shooting organizations that are centered around the M1-Garand. Our rifle chairman is 83 yeras old and he shoots M-1's three times a week.
That is a semi auto military style weapon that was targeted in the assualt weapon bans of yesteryear.
I don't own one and never will but if someone wants to legally purchase one and shoot it they sholud forever have that right.

The day that person screws up there should not be a liberal (democrat) judge sitting there trying to figure out what society did to the poor perpetrator to make him commit a crime and sheepishly hand out a 6 month sentence.
There are so many gun laws in place right now that it would make your head spin.
The problem lies in applying the full penalties and incarceration as spelled out in those laws.

If I were President you would not see the return of the electric chair, you would see electric bleachers.
Until a death sentence means death there isn't a lot to dissuade someone from taking a life.
Scott
 

PINEY MIKE

Explorer
Jan 30, 2009
707
25
Bamber Lake
Well Mike, all you need to do is look at any anti-gun legislation throughout recent history and you will see 95%- 100% democrat sponsorship and support of such bills.
My daddy was a union man too and had to grit his teeth every time he had to vote democrat for his job.

The fact that you think no one should have an automatic weapon because no one hunts with them is slightly off base.
First, as others have already posted, full automatics are not legal now except for very tightly controlled permitting under exceptional circumstances.
Semi automatic weapons are far more common and get thrown in under all of the assault weapons bans.

Colt Ar-15's, Ruger mini-14's and Bushmasters are all lumped in with assault wepaons because of how they look more than for how they operate.
Out west these are very common hunting weapons as they are strong, simple and durable and of the appropriate calibers (.223) for hunting.

I am a board member of a 650 memeber sportsman club that was incorporated in 1938.
A lot of our members are WWII, Korean and Vietnam war veterans that proudly served their country.
These men enjoy shooting military weapons and they participte in matches and shooting organizations that are centered around the M1-Garand. Our rifle chairman is 83 yeras old and he shoots M-1's three times a week.
That is a semi auto military style weapon that was targeted in the assualt weapon bans of yesteryear.
I don't own one and never will but if someone wants to legally purchase one and shoot it they sholud forever have that right.

The day that person screws up there should not be a liberal (democrat) judge sitting there trying to figure out what society did to the poor perpetrator to make him commit a crime and sheepishly hand out a 6 month sentence.
There are so many gun laws in place right now that it would make your head spin.
The problem lies in applying the full penalties and incarceration as spelled out in those laws.

If I were President you would not see the return of the electric chair, you would see electric bleachers.
Until a death sentence means death there isn't a lot to dissuade someone from taking a life.
Scott


Point taken. I know theres a lot of Vets and other people who enjoy shooting the above mentioned guns (my grandfather was a 19 year old Marine in Iwo Jima). However, all it takes is one person looking to make a quick buck in selling some firearms and these types of weapons end up in the wrong people's hands. This personally has not affected me or anyone I know, nor do I take an extremely strong stance on either side. My point is simply that I understand what our administration is doing and maybe people should have to wait a little longer to get permits. It almost makes me wonder what the hell officials were doing that made the old backround checks go so quickly. I know ownership is a constitutional right, but if its going to make our country safer, I dont see why people cant shoot less dangerous weapons. I dont think our forefathers pictured what the thugs of our cities would be packing when they sat down at the convention.
 

PINEY MIKE

Explorer
Jan 30, 2009
707
25
Bamber Lake
Automatic weapons are already illegal without federal licensing. Semi-automatic weapons are legal as long as they don't look all black and menacing and have rambo-like plastic attachments that make Barbara Boxer feel intimidated.

Where are you getting this from? Not true at all.
 

GermanG

Piney
Apr 2, 2005
1,146
489
Little Egg Harbor
Where are you getting this from? Not true at all.

What part is not true? Automatic weapons require a federal license, which is not easily acquired. Semi-automatic weapons are generally legal, with a few exceptions related to magazine capacity. The difference between the semi-auto “assault-style” weapons and the semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns that have been used by hunters and target shooters for a century is purely cosmetic, due to the more menacing look the plastic components give them.
 

PINEY MIKE

Explorer
Jan 30, 2009
707
25
Bamber Lake
What part is not true? Automatic weapons require a federal license, which is not easily acquired. Semi-automatic weapons are generally legal, with a few exceptions related to magazine capacity. The difference between the semi-auto “assault-style” weapons and the semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns that have been used by hunters and target shooters for a century is purely cosmetic, due to the more menacing look the plastic components give them.

I was speaking of the black rifles. I lived in PA for 5 years and have seen the "illegal" semi automatics many times and no federal licensing was required by my friends. Fed licenses arent as impossible to acquire as some make it seem. What would stop someone from getting one? Im not trying to argue anything here. I just see no purpose of the automatics and have no problem with the govt tightening security issues.
 

MarkBNJ

Piney
Jun 17, 2007
1,875
73
Long Valley, NJ
www.markbetz.net
I was speaking of the black rifles. I lived in PA for 5 years and have seen the "illegal" semi automatics many times and no federal licensing was required by my friends. Furthermore, fed licenses arent as impossible to acquire as some make it seem. Im also well aware of the laws regarding semi's. Im not trying to argue anything here. I just see no purpose of the automatics and have no problem with the govt tightening security issues.

If you already owned them, then as far as I recall they were grandfathered in when the law was passed. In any case, what makes the law a fit target for my mocking is that it outlaws weapons that look mean and nasty, while leaving other models that use the exact same action and ammunition, because they have pretty wood stocks and _obviously_ couldn't be used to commit a crime (heavy sarcasm intended).

In general I am not a hard core NRA type. I happen to believe that the "well regulated militia" portion of the clause is important. However, when do-gooders like the dems in Congress start grandstanding what results is stupidity, and let's not ever forget that the same people who are in a rush to ban evil-looking weapons are the ones that stand aghast any time a poor, socially disadvantaged violent criminal has to go to a prison without a weight room, big screen television, and library.
 

PINEY MIKE

Explorer
Jan 30, 2009
707
25
Bamber Lake
If you already owned them, then as far as I recall they were grandfathered in when the law was passed.

Gotcha. Makes sense, as I dont know when they were purchased. Any idea what would get in my way for getting a fed license? Not that I need or want one.
 

GermanG

Piney
Apr 2, 2005
1,146
489
Little Egg Harbor
I'm not a hard core NRA type either. All my hunting rifles load from the front. Assault rifles, 1776 style! But I do firmly believe that the 2nd amendment was intended to protect the average citizen from a central government that becomes increasingly tyrannical, rather than protecting my hunting arms. The argument that the “well regulated militia part” means it now applies to the National Guard makes no sense, when the Bill of Rights as a whole protect the rights individuals from the federal government. The context in which it was written, immediately after we overthrew British control, lends itself to a similar interpretation. And if there is any truth to that interpretation, it kinda makes you wonder what arms would be more protected by the 2nd, my duck gun or an "assault" rifle.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
14,676
4,851
Pines; Bamber area
I stand back and watch from the sidelines. I do want to add my own "changed" view-and here I tread on argumentive ground (or at least unpolitically correct ground).

Over the years, we have seen criminals attain the upper hand against police, and for that reason I always questioned why they were allowed to get their hands on those type of weapons.

But now I see a rising threat from the East, and you all know what I'm talking about. I started to wonder, if that threat attains any kind of legislative and / or popular power here, who will protect our constitution from being turned in favor of that power's ideals? The answer is those of us who favor our own ideals. And we need guns to do that.

Are you hip to what I'm saying? But wait, it gets murkier. The odd thing is, there is a way they can change our own Constitution to favor those ideals, and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. All you need is the votes and support. And that too, is in accordance with our own Constitution.

So essentially, we'd be fighting against people who are using legal methods to change the Constitution. That would mean Civil War.

Hey, I could be all wet, but that is what I feel in 2009.
 
Top