Jump to content

About This Club

This is a club for all discussion of firearms, guns, and other weapons. Members are welcome from around the world! "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

Club Theme

Firearms/Guns

Club Rating

PG 13 - Mature Content
  1. What's new in this club
  2. Bump stocks are now illegal as of March 26. The not so popular range toy is being reclassified by the ATF and DOJ as a "machine gun," making all bump stocks illegal Class III items. Possessing one could result in up to ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine. While bump stocks aren't important and losing them wouldn't do much for the average gun owner, the bump stock case has a few reasons why all Americans should be concerned. As of now, the ATF and DOJ are regulating an item they have previously claimed they cannot regulate. When the bump stock issue was brought up under President Obama, the ATF noted that bump stocks do not contain any parts that make a firearm full auto and are unable to make a firearm full auto. Further, they are unable to fire themselves or be easily modified to fire when not attached to a firearm. Therefore, bump stocks cannot be regulated as a parts kit or firearm, much less a machine gun. The ATF is changing the longstanding understanding of the Hughes Amendment. The wording of the law prohibits firearms that fire "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." Bump stocks make it easier for a shooter to pull the trigger many times in rapid succession, but one shot is still fired per trigger pull. The new interpretation effectively interprets a "function" of a trigger to be a "conscious pull." While "function" is never defined, changing the current interpretation is a dangerous precedent. For example, an anti-gun administration could consider "one shot" to mean "one projectile," banning shotguns as they are designed to fire more than one projectile per function of the trigger. Because bump stocks are being banned by existing law, they will not be grandfathered in. This is very different from many previous bans. Clinton's assault weapon ban allowed guns to be grandfathered. California's magazine ban allowed magazines to be grandfathered until a ballot initiative banned existing magazines (which a judge recently ruled was unconstitutional; I'll probably create a post on that in the coming days). The Hughes Amendment back in 1986 allowed existing full auto firearms to be grandfathered. Hypothetically, someone who isn't following the news could be convicted of a felony and face ten years in prison because they weren't aware bump stocks are now illegal. In addition, current owners won't receive compensation for forfeiting a bump stock. Bump stocks are worthless range toys that shouldn't matter for gun rights. I shot one and don't see the point in it. I would personally never own one. Yet, the manner in which they are being banned sets a dangerous precedent. If it stands, any future anti-gun administration could bypass Congress and ban guns they don't particularly like. For that reason and that reason alone, the bump stock ban should be fought in the courts.
  3. So nice to see someone who actually criticizes both parties, I am so use to people supporting one and always defending the one the support no matter what. It is a shame the parties are going extreme, and our first President did warn us against creating political parties, and look where we are xd
  4. I'll never consider myself a conservative. I dont believe in traditional values and etc. Dont get me wrong that does not mean I dont have morals, I do but I just find traditional values to be backwards But i do believe in gun rights
  5. Stick around and you'll learn. We all begin somewhere. It's just as much a cultural battle as a political one. If nobody grows up shooting weapons, they're less likely to get into guns when they are old enough to buy one as they'll have other hobbies. It'll then be easier to pass gun laws and demonize the few remaining gun owners. Absolutely. It's a shame the parties and extremists on both sides seem more concerned with opposing the other. Anyway, glad to have you onboard!
  6. The guns issue is what will most energize voters toward Republicans; Democrat party has went so anti-Gun there is a danger of them trying to weaponize the gov against gun owners. It’s people like this congressman the founders were worried about. I’m a Libertarian & don’t care for either major party. Although the democrats are bad enough on this issue I want them to lose more usually.
  7. lAzY I'm gonna be honest, i dont know much about firearms because I'm a dirty liberal but I dont see why this would be restricted. Funny enough - eventhough far left politicans does target these bigger weapons, and try to paint them worse than handguns but I looked up a study one of them quoted from and found large data they didnt post which would of contradicted their position which showed handguns were far more used in assaults and robberies due to the ability to conceal them #TheFarLeftIsRuingingTheLiberalName I know it seems I'm supporting conservative points, but last I checked, liberalism is about personal freedoms and that's why I consider myself a liberal, personal freedoms should never be infringed, and guns go in line of personal freedoms.
  8. Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) introduced a bill last month which would make all semi-auto rifles and shotguns with detachable magazines items restricted by the National Firearms Act (NFA). For anyone not familiar with US gun laws, NFA items are heavily restricted. They include short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, destructive devices, suppressors, full auto firearms (further restricted by the Hughes Amendment) and a weird classification known as "any other weapon" (AOW). To obtain these firearms, you must Fill out a large amount of paperwork Send in fingerprints for a more in depth background check Pay a $200 tax stamp (only $5 for AOWs) Register it on a federal registry (Unless you break another law with the firearm, in which case you can't be tried for not registering it as that would be self incrimination.) Transfer it at a dealer with a Federal Firearms License Wait months for approval (usually between 6 and 12 months; I'm currently on 6) Must be placed into a trust to be reasonably transferred through a will There's a ton regarding the legality of the NFA. I may make a rant post about it some day. Anyway, HR 1263 is interesting for a few reasons. First, it uses a current law to further restrict purchasing a firearm as opposed to new laws. This seems easier to do and different from the usual assault weapon ban proposed every year. However, it's also much more restrictive. HR 1263 doesn't exempt .22s with detachable magazines, which are commonly used for summer camps and programs such as scouts. While tube fed .22s are exempt from the definition of "ammunition feeding device," only firearms with detachable "ammunition feeding devices" are being restricted. Tube fed guns don't have detachable magazines. Why would this be included? The only answer would be to make it easier to enact bans in the future, which may include guns with fixed magazines. In addition, definition of detachable magazine is similar to the one used in California that led to the creation of the bullet button. Effectively, people made the magazine release on their guns to act similar to a reset button on a calculator, using a bullet as a "tool" to release the magazine. Because a "tool" was used, they legally "disassembled" the firearm when they reloaded, making the magazines legally fixed magazines. It took the state years to actually ban bullet buttons. The fact that this bill doesn't learn from California shows that Ted Deutch hasn't researched the topic at all. Finally, the bill only targets rifles and shotguns, a common theme with gun laws. Had Deutch done his homework, he would know that the vast majority of homicides are committed with handguns, not rifles and shotguns. Homicides with rifles, shotguns, other firearms, and all unspecified firearms would still be less than half the number of homicides with handguns. This bill, like many others, completely ignores that handguns make up a disproportionately large part of homicides. Instead, it focuses on weapons commonly demonized by the media and politicians. Ted Deutch would've known this if he did his research. In reality, he doesn't care about firearm homicides. He doesn't care about your safety. He only cares about his politics, his donations, and his reelection.
  9. Arizona Robbins

    Oregon SB501

    Any? Kinda high. I understand having a minimum for handguns but hunting rifles should of stayed at 18 Do not see how this is constitutional in any form. Who's ensuring the Sheirff isnt being biased and abusing this power. As a liberal I am against this as it does infringe on a legal abiding citizens to obtain a gun, which is protected by the Second Amendment. I get this, and tbh I agree with the requirement of a safety course to be taken. Everyone who plans to own a gun needs to know how to handle it safely. Lol this is a stupid term and I'm sure a federal judge will strike this one down as well. I understand the reason behind this but yes, in a dire situation, this makes it difficult and imo it's the responsibility of the owner, not the government, on how secure your weapons are in your own property. Ridiculous term - if a person is a legal abiding citizen who passes every check, they shouldn't he denied. Abuse of power Good thing I dont live in Oregon A bit on inconvienence, and considering Americans are the least patient people in the world, I dont see how this will work out. 3,500$ isnt a reasonable amount so not sure how they can charge that. It would only ensure the poor cannot obtain a gun for hunting or self defense purposes so Overall, I agree with your assessment. For once a liberal like me agrees with a conservative. This is unconstitutional and I hope Oregon makes the right choice and vote no on this bill
  10. WISD0MTREE

    Oregon SB501

    Oregon is trying to catch up to California, New Jersey, Hawaii, Washington, and Illinois in their race to the worst state for the Second Amendment. SB501, introduced back in January, would introduce the nation's strictest gun laws. If it passes, it would Raise the minimum age to 21 to buy a gun. Require people to obtain a permit from a sheriff to buy a gun. Other permits, particularly carry permits, have a history of becoming unobtainable. Recent abuse can be seen in the case of George Young Jr. v. State of Hawaii, where it was revealed Hawaii only gave four concealed carry permits in the past eighteen years. Complete a safety course to obtain a permit. Limit magazine capacity, fixed or detachable, to 5 rounds. (Tube fed .22lrs and lever action rifles are exempt.) This effectively bans most revolvers. In addition, this would be the smallest limit, smaller than New York's 7 round limit, which was struck down by a federal judge in 2014. Require all guns to be locked at all times, making them difficult to obtain in a self defense situation. Require background checks and an ammo purchase database. Limit the amount of ammo a person can buy to 20 rounds per month, except ammo bought and shot at shooting ranges. Still allow sheriffs to deny permits even if the person passed every check and met every requirement. Penalize firearm owners who don't report stolen firearms within 24 hours with no provision exempting people out of town. Go on vacation and your house gets robbed? Now you're the criminal. Establish a 14 day waiting period. Charge a "reasonable fee" to obtain the permit with no stated amount. The National Firearms Act of 1934 established a "reasonable fee" of $200, or over $3,500 adjusted for inflation in 2019. I should note that no gun or magazine banned by this law would be grandfathered in, unlike many other gun laws. Even California grandfathered in "large" capacity magazines when they were banned, granted they banned the grandfathered magazines a few years ago. Oregon currently has a Democrat super-majority in the legislature. Plus, their Democratic governor received $250,000 from Michael Bloomberg, founder of Everytown for Gun Safety. This is Governor Brown's largest political donation ever received. Even though it's still in committee, Oregon Democrats could push this through almost overnight. Oh, and the bill was created by students from the organization Students for Change. State Senator Rob Wagner, who introduced the bill, states he did not check the constitutionality of the bill prior to introducing it. This unconstitutional law, created by kids, could easily make a state become the worst state for gun owners overnight if the Oregon legislature decided to go through with it.
  11. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-city-of-new-york-new-york/ This is an interesting one. SCOTUS actually agreed to hear a case regarding the Second Amendment. They haven't heard a Second Amendment case since Heller (11 years ago). New York City only lets people take their guns to and from the city's seven ranges, unless you have a carry license. Even with a carry license, you still can't take your firearm outside of New York City. Carry licenses are extremely restricted and even news anchors have had difficulties obtaining a license despite having dozens of death threats. The lower courts claimed the ban is constitutional as Heller only discussed guns inside the home. Their ruling could possibly bring nationwide reciprocity or make shall issue the standard. They'll probably decide on it early next year, but this is still something to watch.
  12. James II

    SilencerCo April Fools Videos

    Maxim was my second favorite. Didn't care for The Wizard Staff lol
  13. Every year, SilencerCo comes out with a new April Fools video. My question to PaW: which one do you like best? Vote now!
  14. WISD0MTREE

    Weapons of War ruling

    I know someone who bought 30 80% lowers and tens of thousands of rounds of M855 ahead of the election because he thought Hillary was going to win. He doesn't want to talk about it, either. Absolutely.
  15. WISD0MTREE

    Watcha Packin'?

    I don't have my NC CWP since I'll be moving in less than a year, so I carry a Springfield XD9 in my work bag (NC's Castle Doctrine extends to your workplace) and under my seat in my car (illegal to put it in your center console or glovebox). Once I move, I'll get my licence and get either a Sig P365, Glock 19, H&K P30SK, or Walther PPS and actually carry. I'll want my backup to be the same when I start carrying. I have no idea why people would do that. If you're used to carrying with one, I have no idea why you would change. I met someone who carried his backup once or twice a week since they were different platforms, but then he got a second Glock for his backup.
  16. So, in MA, our firearms permit is called an LTC (License to Carry). An LTC is required to purchase pistols and pretty much any long gun other than shotguns or bolt actions that cant hold 10 or more rounds. It also doubles (or triples) as a permit to buy ammo. I obtained my LTC with the sole purpose of concealed carry for personal protection outside the home. I guess my question is, Y'all concealed carry? whatcha packin? My EDC is a Gen5 Glock 19 with upgraded night sights (Truglo TFX Pro) and an APLc mounted light.. And I carry I spare mag. My backup (read: should my EDC not be physically available; not a 2nd gun that is carried on my person) is a Gen3 Glock 19 that I converted from a Glock 23 - also with TFX Pro sights and an APLc. I've read a lot about people having backups that are completely different from their EDC. For example, they carry a Glock 17 but occasionally toss in a 1911 or Sig Legion into the mix. That doesn't make any sense to me. If my EDC were to become unusable for whatever reason, I would want the same or very similar platform. Thats why I set up both of them the same way. Maybe I'm crazy.
  17. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180727/canada-toronto-politicians-push-nationwide-handgun-ban-feds-to-consider-proposal Not to marginalize the shooting in Toronto. But it's weird how Canada's gun laws were some of the 'strongest in the world' and they 'dont have the type of problems the US has' a week ago. Now all semi autos need banning. I'm just curious as to how they feel a ban on pistols would have changed the outcome, if they're already virtually banned?
  18. rollo

    Weapons of War ruling

    You're not wrong. I don't necessarily think bump stocks were 'stupid' - i think they were a neat little toy tbh. I never owned one for personal use. Though I did try to cash in on the ban hysteria and bought a bunch to sell on gunbroker. I don't want to talk about it.
  19. James II

    Weapons of War ruling

    The bump stock should have never existed, not because I'm opposed to it. I think it's a stupid invention. The reason I think it should have never been invented is because automatic rifles should have never been banned, thus the bump stock never invented.
  20. http://www.guns.news/2018-07-24-federal-government-declares-ar-15s-are-not-weapons-of-war.html Not sure I understand the .50 cal thing. There seems to be a movement in several states to ban it (including here in MA). I've never shot it, myself. So I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm typically against bans in general; especially when you consider that no crime (to my knowledge) was ever committed using a .50 BMG. Another example would be the Bump Stock ban - 1 person uses it with nefarious intentions and they suddenly need to be banned? Anti gunners often ask "why do you NEED an AR15?" "Why do you NEED a bump stock?" "Why do you NEED a .50 cal?" When you ask why anyone needs something, you're treating a right as a privilege.
  21. James II

    Favorite Gun

    Springfield XD(M) - Most reliable gun I've owned. 19 round magazine, comfortable grip. I've only had one FTE due to stock over greasing. The gun has never choked on me since best gun I've shot with. All moving parts are made of solid material, no plastic like some of it's competitors. Runner up would be the H&K P30. John Kelly from Tom Clancy had one. Everything about it is solid, just doesn't have the 19 round magazine the Springfield does. SKS - Honorable mention. Classic and fun gun to shoot. You can't break it, and it has mad range. It's the ultimate 'tuner gun.' I think I just made a term up.
  22. Actually hella surprised 9th circuit ruled in favor of open carry considering how incredibly liberal it is heh
  23. I've always seen open carry as the gay parades of the gun world. It's just a way to be publicly annoying and seen. I don't want an open carry ban, but I'd prioritize CC reciprocity over OC laws. I think they knew the entire 9th would overturn it, so they were just being lazy. Still, it provides a golden opportunity to go after Peruta vs San Diego if they shoot it down. Hopefully with Kavanaugh, SCOTUS picks up the case even though Kavanaugh's record on the 2nd hasn't been stellar. Who knows, though. Feinstein after Vegas said no law would have prevented the shooting (then proceeded to propose an extremely vague law that could be interpreted to ban a vast amount of guns).
  24. I'm concerned that they seemingly made a distinction between open carry & concealed carry. I'm also concerned that they made this ruling half heatedly, knowing that the full court would be likely to overturn it. Especially since emphasizing Open Carry opens the Pandora's box of people carrying rifles and shotguns at the mall (for example). Certainly, the full court could look at that and use it as reason to reject the ruling.
  25. lmao I was typing up a post while you posted this, so I'll post it here. What makes the case even more surprising is the fact that no gun rights group influenced the outcome. The NRA, GOA, SAF, and all the others had no role in it. A pro bono lawyer, a Vietnam vet, and the Constitution convinced the court. They found (emphasis added): In addition, they stated (emphasis added): I should also note that court documents show that no carry permits were issued in all of 2016 or 2017 in Hawaii. That's a de facto carry ban if you ask me. Even New Jersey, Illinois, California, and New York City (who has their own permits for some reason) issued at least one permit in those years.
  26. http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/24/liberal-ninth-circuit-says-open-carrying-gun-constitutional-right/ I fully expect the decision to be overturned En Banc. As to whether or not it makes it to the SCOTUS, they have punted on every 2nd Amendment case since Heller thus far. So I am not holding my breath. Still a long way to go here.
  27.  
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.