600 rds of 5.56 is only 15.5 lbs? I thought it would be heavier, actually. I think I need to hit the gym.

 

Does anyone actually believe the bill will pass?

 

I don't believe any "ban" will pass, but then again, no man has ever died as a result of being well prepared. Expect the best, prepare for the worst. The only "bans" with any momentum whatsoever are soely on magazines...unless you live in a fucktard state of course.

 

Go ahead say it! California.

 

I don't think any ban will pass... But I also didn't think SCOTUS would uphold an unconstitutional bill like Obama care or that Obama would win reelection...... So far I'm 0 for 2 though.

 

^All of that shiz takes time... and the "time" it takes is all based on how much uproar is caused. It's anyone's guess as to what sort of action is going to be taken in the various court systems as it pertains to the recent NYS laws... but it's certain that there is going to be some lawsuits.

I'm still of the opinion that there will be no federal AWB/mag-limits passed this year... but that doesn't mean next year is a given. Rest assured that I'll be stocking up on lower receivers and PMAGs as soon as they're back in stock for reasonable prices... shouldn't take long.

And don't have such a low opinion of Cali. Despite the national furor, California has done a damned good job of fending off legislation such as it is, and actually gets better year by year as more and more counties embrace "shall-issue" CCW. You'll notice that when it comes to federally sponsored legislation, NONE OF IT COMES from "shall issue" state representatives. You'll notice that Feinstein can't even get an AWB ban in her own state that's famous for Democrat asshattery... much let get something rolling on a national scale.

 

So, if Sen Feinstein's law passed, and we could not grandfather in our gats would that mean that the gouberment would go after them and try to confiscate our "assault" rifles, and other banned weapons?

 

What weapons? B/C boat accident of course... invest in some 6" PVC and post hole digger.

Got email saying my CAA mags are on the way... ain't magul, but I'll give them a try.

 

The most likely scenario to occur if there was a all out ban on ownership is a grace period.

For example: "As of Dec 31 2013, no person in the State of California may be in possession of a XYZ gun for any reason. Current owners have until that date to sell their guns out of state or turn them into their local police dept. Any individual found in possession after such date is committing a felony punishable by blah blah."

So the gun is basically useless. You can't take it anywhere, and you can't use it in your residence in a defensive capacity because a DA will charge you with negligent homicide even in a righteous shooting for using a banned weapon.

Same thing would apply on a national scale. So no, the gubmint will not be sending people door-to-door searching houses for guns because the gubmint doesn't know you own any, or the data-mining process to backtrack information needed to find out what Americans do own what types of guns would be logistically and financially impossible. It's just that any gun you owned on the list would be a ticket to jail if you were ever caught with it. This scenario is exactly what happened in Australia and the UK, although those countries had decades of mandatory full-registration for all firearms, so the police did know exactly what guns people had and where they stored them... so if somebody didn't turn their guns in, the police did come to their house to get them.

But I wouldn't worry about that kind of thing happening at the federal level anytime soon. Just stand by for prices to come back down mid-late summer and then start stocking up on everything you can so you can make some bank during the next crisis.

 

Media Matters Calls for Gun Control, Carries Illegal Guns to Protect Its Founder

 

Gun show loophole?

 

Who knows. Websites like armslist.com and facebook groups have made the gunshow "loophole" a non-issue. It's too easy to arrange private transactions now.

 

^Local forums are good too. I had an awesome forum living in New Orleans... bayoushooter.com. Made several ftf sales/buys at the local Lowes through classified ads.

 

Sorry; I misread that. I thought it said the actual guy, David Brock, had purchased firearms in face-to-face transactions as well as arming his assistant. The "gunshow loophole" (aka non-dealer transactions) would encompass a potentially mentally unstable person who had been hospitalized multiple times being able to purchase a firearm without triggering any kind of current background check.

That's not the case, according to the article, though. Effectively, there was no difference between whether the staffer had purchased the firearm at a dealer or a private transaction.

 

I actually know people who believe this alleged "gun show loophole" means you can slip an extra fifty to some dealer and buy a firearm without a 4473 background check.. Of course, the first person that comes to mind continuously talks about the "m14" he's building.. lol

 

Every study I've ever seen that I believe I can trust shows that guncrimes committed with guns purchased at gunshows during legit FTF sales account for very low single-digits... like 1-2%. The number climbs to 3-4% if you count straw-purchases.

I've actually witnessed this with my very own two eyes:
3 black teenagers walking around with Grandmaw walk up to a table, teens all pick up guns and start waving them around. Kids all say "I want this one". FFL is standing there watching. Grandmaw says "How much for dem guns?" You can imagine the rest of the converstation.

 

So me saying "this 22 is for my wife" to the FFL was a bad thing?

 

Understand that I am using "gunshow loophole" somewhat sarcastically to refer to face-to-face transactions that do not require background checks. I would guess there are probably more politicians than we give credit for using it with the same meaning, but with a different intent.

 

No, not really. There's nothing specifically illegal about purchasing a firearm to present to someone else as a gift, so long as it is legal for that person to own a firearm.

Actual straw purchases (brokering a firearm purchase for someone else) is another story.

 

Actually the last time I checked it's perfectly legal to buy a firearm as a gift, so long as the recipient is legally able to possess said firearm. States like CA require FFL for transfers though I believe.

Yeah I get it, that term just makes me want to punch a Liberal on general principals..

I also read a study by the FBI once that placed "assault weapons" as less than 2% of firearm related crime.