TexasCHLforum.com

If you buy something today and there is an AWB come Feb 09 can you still legally have it. What about use it? On that note where can you take these types of guns to shoot them? I'm very new to any guns as of this year and am learning about hand guns but in light of the elections I decided it was a good idea to at least consider if I'd ever want something on the AWB possible list.

** I have a Glock 19 with a 15 round mag what will happen with these?

Your glock has a detachable magazine.

I was under the impression that the manufacture of any "high capacity" (over ten rounds) magazine would be banned regardless of whether it was for a rifle or a handgun, but I don't see that right now in HR1022. Maybe someone else can clear up that point.

what guns? I sold them all to a guy at a gunshow for cash.....I think he was driving a pickup truck and he had on a cowboy hat.........

txmatt wrote:Your glock has a detachable magazine.

I was under the impression that the manufacture of any "high capacity" (over ten rounds) magazine would be banned regardless of whether it was for a rifle or a handgun, but I don't see that right now in HR1022. Maybe someone else can clear up that point.

The last time around the banned gun was still legal to possess, you just could not buy any "New" magazines greater than 10 round capacity.

For example prior to the last ban I bought an HK USP 9 with 15rnd magazine. During the ban I could only buy 10 round magazine.

that is a good question. laws have been passed retroactively in the past (google bill clinton retroactive tax). it has been one of my concerns that they could negate post ban guns and make it retroactive to the orginal ban, but it is more likely, if it were retroactive at all, that it would be to begining of the year in which it was passed. Not saying that is what will happen, but it is a concern on my part.

maybe someone could say if it is even possible to ban the guns being bought today?

Big question too.... What about all those mags stamped "Law Enforcement Only"? Wonder if those would still be legal or would you be forced to destroy them?

Edited to add... a quick search reveals this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_fa ... ted_States but either i am too tired to understand it or just not smart enough.

Ok so on my Glock 19 how would I go about getting say a 10 rounder. Again being new to guns I'm not ever sure how that'd work in my gun as it would change the normal configuration of how the bullets are in the mag. Any of you who went though this know.

YellowTJ wrote:Ok so on my Glock 19 how would I go about getting say a 10 rounder. Again being new to guns I'm not ever sure how that'd work in my gun as it would change the normal configuration of how the bullets are in the mag. Any of you who went though this know.

The 10 round mag is the same size at the 12, 15 and 17 round mags... it just has a spacer under the follower to prevent more than 10 rounds from being inserted in the mag, and the mag will not function without the spacer.

KaiserB wrote:

YellowTJ wrote:Ok so on my Glock 19 how would I go about getting say a 10 rounder. Again being new to guns I'm not ever sure how that'd work in my gun as it would change the normal configuration of how the bullets are in the mag. Any of you who went though this know.

The 10 round mag is the same size at the 12, 15 and 17 round mags... it just has a spacer under the follower to prevent more than 10 rounds from being inserted in the mag, and the mag will not function without the spacer.

If you try to modify the mag (say, by removing the spacer and installing a new mag spring), you are "manufacturing" a new magazine that, if a ban is passed, would be illegal.

Every reference I have seen to a proposed, new AWB includes that there will be no grandfather clause.

If that were to be, every one of us who owns such a firearm or magazine would then be a criminal.

There might be a grace period to allow for disposing of the weapons but there will be no one who could legally buy them except LE and LE won't need most of them.

It might be time to review the procedures that California used when they stole everyones' "assault rifles".

Anyone who is thinking that they can survive another AWB better think again.

There is just a small chance that we might have enough support in Congress to prevent something so heinous from being enacted.

Actually, HR 1022 does include a grandfather clause:

`(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.

However, it massively expands the definition of what an assault weapon is:

`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud.

Also, note this paragraph:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

Mike1951 wrote:Every reference I have seen to a proposed, new AWB includes that there will be no grandfather clause.

If that were to be, every one of us who owns such a firearm or magazine would then be a criminal.

There might be a grace period to allow for disposing of the weapons but there will be no one who could legally buy them except LE and LE won't need most of them.

It might be time to review the procedures that California used when they stole everyones' "assault rifles".

Anyone who is thinking that they can survive another AWB better think again.

There is just a small chance that we might have enough support in Congress to prevent something so heinous from being enacted.

Please link to these. HR1022 had a sunset, and HR6257 has a sunset. HR1022 died, and HR6257 will die when congresss session ends in January.

Mike1951 wrote:Every reference I have seen to a proposed, new AWB includes that there will be no grandfather clause.

If that were to be, every one of us who owns such a firearm or magazine would then be a criminal.

<snip>

Go ahead and call me naive, but I really can't see anyone trying to take away existing guns from gun owners. At the farthest reaches of my imagination, I could see them telling you to turn them in, but if you don't...? You sold it, lost it, it fell in a well, etc. Are they going to come to your house and search it? That's a bit far-fetched for me to buy, but it would be good in the long run, as it would result in the largest membership drive in NRA history and would probably take the Democrats out of the political business forever come 2012. There are a LOT of gun owners and pro 2nd amendment voters in the US, and I think the dems will be much more careful and try to creep up quietly on gun owners with "reasonable" (in their spin) restrictions. As the NRA notes, did you notice that NO ONE, not even the most liberal democrat, was on tv with a commercial touting their intention to ban guns wholesale from the US? Times they have changed, IMH(& naive) O.

Still good to be aware and cognizant of what's going on around us.

Kythas wrote:`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

So much for hunting with that Remington 1100.

SlowDave wrote: Go ahead and call me naive, but I really can't see anyone trying to take away existing guns from gun owners.

Okay. You're naive.

I tend to take people at their word. The spoken and printed word has meaning.

A zebra cannot change its stripes.

The socialist agenda will not change no matter how many times their website is changed or how much they try to sugarcoat their intentions by saying things like "maobama respects sensible hunting".

Anygunanywhere

SlowDave wrote:Go ahead and call me naive, but I really can't see anyone trying to take away existing guns from gun owners. At the farthest reaches of my imagination, I could see them telling you to turn them in, but if you don't...? You sold it, lost it, it fell in a well, etc. Are they going to come to your house and search it? That's a bit far-fetched for me to buy, but it would be good in the long run, as it would result in the largest membership drive in NRA history and would probably take the Democrats out of the political business forever come 2012. There are a LOT of gun owners and pro 2nd amendment voters in the US, and I think the dems will be much more careful and try to creep up quietly on gun owners with "reasonable" (in their spin) restrictions. As the NRA notes, did you notice that NO ONE, not even the most liberal democrat, was on tv with a commercial touting their intention to ban guns wholesale from the US? Times they have changed, IMH(& naive) O.

Still good to be aware and cognizant of what's going on around us.

I'll second the motion, and call you naive, and add short sighted with limited memory. Do you recall what happened in California? How about NY? In both cases ex post facto laws were passed outlawing already possessed firearms, including "turn in by" dates, and the threat, even if it wasn't followed through on, of searches based on records.

And don't even get me started on MA.

With bambam in the White House, and his people, if not he, already claiming a mandate, there is every likelyhood that the attempt will be made, and that they will count on the long and arduous process of getting such a thing to the Supreme Court to be very long and very arduous.

Remember one old tactic from HCI's playbook - if you manage to eliminate a class or part of a class of firearms from public possession for even a short period of time, the class is going to be replaced at a lower rate. Now this did not necessarily happen in the wake of the expiration of the AWB, but that was a ban that already had been scheduled to sunset, so a lot of us were saving up waiting for the day when we could buy full capacity magazines again. The old AWB generated a backlash, a new one, with no sunset date attached, may not, particularly if SCOTUS has to be depended on to quash it. Particularly if turn ins and confiscations have happened.