Survivalist Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Virginia new assault weapon definitions

Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 77 Posts
#41 ·
boomerweps said:
Those Demo Rats in Va introduced a new bill that among other things basically defines any semiautomatic firearm that is CAPABLE of using a detachable magazine of greater than 10 round capacity as an Assault Weapon. Semiauto Shotgun greater than 7 round capacity OR ANY magazine fed. ANY firearm with a fore grip. ANY rifle or shotgun with a protruding handgrip. Thumb hole grip on a shotgun. ANY pistol with a threaded barrel. ALL of these are defined as assault weapons and are listed to be removed from the state, turned in with no compensation, or rendered inoperable.
Reference: www.bearingarms.com
Click to expand...
A number of folks have over looked the proposed text of this terrible bill. Allow me to break down just the part affecting magazine feed, semi auto carbines.

2. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine

and has one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle;
(iii) a thumbhole stock;
(iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(v) a bayonet mount;
(vi) a grenade launcher;
(vii) a flare launcher;
(viii) a silencer;
(ix) a flash suppressor;
(x) a muzzle brake;
(xi) a muzzle compensator;
(xii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting
(a) a silencer,
(b) a flash suppressor,
(c) a muzzle brake, or
(d) a muzzle compensator; or
(xiii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (xii);

This bill is designed to outlaw the AR, and AK, and similar modern military carbines.

It would not affect a mag fed semi auto that does not feature a folding, telescoping stock, a pistol grip, or a muzzle suppressor/break/compensator.
It does not affect a Remington 742, a Ruger mini (non tactical) or a M1 Carbine or M1a without a muzzle break/break/compensator.

This is exactly the kind of crap they passed in California 30 yrs ago, and these "Scary Feature" gun bans were upheld by the courts.
So fight like hell against this, even if you dont particularly like the AR or AK designs.
 
#43 ·
Snyper708 said:
puttster said:
As I read it a Remington 742 semiautomatic .308 rifle that accepts a detachable magazine of 50 rounds would be perfectly legitimate.
Click to expand...
That tells me your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...
Why be insulting Mr. Snyper? Why not simply show me (and Hick and others) wrong?
That way everyone can get a different impression of you.
 
#45 ·
Hick Industries said:
A number of folks have over looked the proposed text of this terrible bill. Allow me to break down just the part affecting magazine feed, semi auto carbines.

2. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine

and has one of the following characteristics:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle;
(iii) a thumbhole stock;
(iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(v) a bayonet mount;
(vi) a grenade launcher;
(vii) a flare launcher;
(viii) a silencer;
(ix) a flash suppressor;
(x) a muzzle brake;
(xi) a muzzle compensator;
(xii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting
(a) a silencer,
(b) a flash suppressor,
(c) a muzzle brake, or
(d) a muzzle compensator; or
(xiii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (xii);

This bill is designed to outlaw the AR, and AK, and similar modern military carbines.

It would not affect a mag fed semi auto that does not feature a folding, telescoping stock, a pistol grip, or a muzzle suppressor/break/compensator.
It does not affect a Remington 742, a Ruger mini (non tactical) or a M1 Carbine or M1a without a muzzle break/break/compensator.

This is exactly the kind of crap they passed in California 30 yrs ago, and these "Scary Feature" gun bans were upheld by the courts.
So fight like hell against this, even if you dont particularly like the AR or AK designs.
Click to expand...

The proposed magazine bans in separate bills would cover those rifles neatly, as would the proposals to outlaw all indoor and outdoor shooting ranges that are not state owned or do not meet the department of energy (no idea how they selected this) requirement for a range. we are fighting more than 80 anti-gun laws as well as over a hundred other terrible proposed laws, such as, a law allowing girls as young as 14 to terminate a certain physical condition without parental approval or consent.


If even a small portion of these pass, LEGAL firearms ownership in Virginia will cease to exist.
 
#48 ·
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle;

Here are two work arounds that we have. One is a Thordsen stock ( around $140), the other is a "Spur" grip.
No muzzle device, either a crowned barrel or a pin & welded thread cap. Fixed length stock.

We can also make the magazine non removable and keep all the scary features.
To load, pull the rear take down pin , open action, insert ammo into exposed magazine.
Cali has less strict wording in their law and can open the action, swap mags and then close action.

Fight it hard, boys. We lost in the appeals courts.
 

Attachments

#51 ·
Snyper708 said:
The one about slaves, that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic?

Don't confuse my ignoring it with a lack of comprehension.
I just choose to not run down your rabbit trails.
Click to expand...
Documented historical fact that the courts make bad calls "has absolutely nothing to do with this topic"


...yea, you keep on ignoring that.:rolleyes:
 
#52 · (Edited)
xstuntman said:
They have this thing called a recall.
Virginia voters might want to try it.
Click to expand...
Have at it - we need more funds

https://lpvirginia.org/recall-senator-****-saslaw/

*** = d.i.c.k.

https://lpvirginia.org/


The Libertarian Party of Virginia alleges that Senator **** Saslaw is misusing his power to propose SB16, which purports to criminalize hundreds of thousands of lawful firearm owners for an improper political purpose. We want to preemptively deescalate potential conflict resulting from this legislation by taking the issue to the courts, where the Second Amendment will inevitably be reinforced. Our law enforcement officers should not have to decide between their neighbor and Saslaw’s unconstitutional law. No human being should be imprisoned for their right to bear arms.

We need 5,000 signatures of registered voters from the 35th Senate district and $20,000 to get this petition to court. In the name of Liberty…
 
#53 ·
Snyper708 said:
The one about slaves, that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic?

Don't confuse my ignoring it with a lack of comprehension.
I just choose to not run down your rabbit trails.
Click to expand...
Actually it does, from a legal standpoint. The Constitution and courts prior to the 13th Amendment did allow states to have slavery or involuntary servitude. Some states abolished it, others had slavery. It's no different now, other than their is already a Constitutional Amendment that protects the 2A from infringement and while I agree, the legalize of "regulations" has made infringements legal precedence, and some states have essentially used court cases to erode the 2A and infringe how ever they see fit.

While I don't think it's racially possible, I do see a future where the courts may grant involuntary servitude under the right circumstances without due process...it would be the same that is happening now in Virginia. But they do have several court cases as precedence to support infringement actions. About the only way to defeat such a violation of both the State and US Constitution is to either politically remove them...or simply storm the Capitol and remove them by force...which would create a whole other "situation".

Bottom line, the Courts cannot be relied on and are as much of a problem as the tyrants who use them. Alas, "regulations" have become codeword for legal infringements...citizens and Constitutions be damned.

ROCK6
 
#54 ·
beaner said:
They are trying to outlaw most all firearms by the broad definition. A sign of things that will happen wherever they get the majority.
Click to expand...
Nothing has really changed. They are using the Federal game book that was written back in the 1980s. Now, the attack on the 2nd went from the federal level to state level.
 
#57 ·
Snyper708 said:
The "courts" didn't make those decisions.
Congress did.
Click to expand...
Historical facts do not match your opinion:

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case
The Dred Scott case, also known as Dred Scott v. Sanford, was a decade-long fight for freedom by a black slave named Dred Scott. The case persisted through several courts and ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decision incensed abolitionists, gave momentum to the anti-slavery movement and served as a stepping stone to the Civil War.
Click to expand...

Taney became best known for writing the final majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford, which said that all people of African descent, free or slave, were not United States citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. In addition, he wrote that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property.

The decision also argued that the Missouri Compromise legislation — passed to balance the power between slave and non-slave states — was unconstitutional. In effect, this meant that Congress had no power to prevent the spread of slavery.
Click to expand...
 
#60 ·
Nomad said:
Historical facts do not match your opinion:

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/dred-scott-case
Click to expand...
Except the action probably should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because Scott was not a citizen, nor a citizen or subject of a foreign state.

COTUS: Article III, Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--
between a State and Citizens of another State;--
between Citizens of different States;--
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and
between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and
foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Click to expand...
 
41 - 60 of 77 Posts
About this Discussion
76 Replies
40 Participants
Last post:
FirstToken
Survivalist Forum
posts
12M
members
169K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to survivalists and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, gear, DIY projects, hobbies, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Off Topic Lounge Disaster Preparedness General Discussion Firearms General Discussion New Member Introductions Financial Forum