Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out

[Snaquebite]

11/20/2012 Alan Korwin – Author Gun Laws Of America GunLaws.com

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point20Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “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.”



More: http://americannationalmilitia.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out/

[Badger52]

I think an exec directive telling ATF to simply reclassify things to an NFA list may be in the mix absent the legislative 'will', a term which I use in congressional context very loosely.

[trvlr]

More: http://americannationalmilitia.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out/

Do we know where this list actually came from? HR 1022, was created and squashed in the 110th Congress (2007-2008.) This list is nearly identical to that one. I don't see any Executive Branch references, or citations and haven't heard anything from the administration on the matter.

I don't think it's going to happen. IMO If the President really wanted these guns to be banned he would have tried to push for it early in his first term when he had a Democratic Senate and House majority.

I also think the Supreme Court has enough backbone to uphold citizen's individual rights.

[The Reaper]

Do we know where this list actually came from? HR 1022, was created and squashed in the 110th Congress (2007-2008.) This list is nearly identical to that one. I don't see any Executive Branch references, or citations and haven't heard anything from the administration on the matter.

I don't think it's going to happen. IMO If the President really wanted these guns to be banned he would have tried to push for it early in his first term when he had a Democratic Senate and House majority.

I also think the Supreme Court has enough backbone to uphold citizen's individual rights.

I don't think he anticipated losing control of the House in his first term.

Furthermore, we are about two heartbeats away from the SCOTUS being eager supporters of such a ban. Given some of Roberts' decisions, maybe only one heartbeat away.

TR

[trvlr]

I don't think he anticipated losing control of the House in his first term.

Great point. If the President really wants to go that route now then we won't have to wait too long before we start seeing the signs.

[GratefulCitizen]

They need to get the label right.

These are not "assault" weapons.
They are weapons designed for quashing rebellion on the part of our elected/appointed servants.

I grow tired of these servants (politicians/judges) constantly trying to rebel against their masters (the people).
The guns in private hands will not be given up peacefully; and the majority of trigger-pullers working for the government will not assist in confiscation.

Hopefully a demonstration of this reality will not be necessary.
Molon labe.

[Dozer523]

These are not "assault" weapons. . .
They are weapons designed for quashing rebellion on the part of our elected/appointed servants.
Oh. Well, that's different. :D:eek::mad::p
Look, I'm trying to stay out of this one, but that is just an amazing statement.
If that really is what these weapons are for, is there ANY hope "they" won't come them?
Quashing? Do you mean fomenting? Reminds me of The Princess Bride. ("I don't think that word means what you think it means.")

[MR2]

Insurgency/Counterinsurgency - such a fine line and the definitions depend on which side of the line your standing on.

[SF18C]

Insurgency/Counterinsurgency - such a fine line and the definitions depend on which side of the line your standing on.


or who the oppressors are!:lifter

[ZonieDiver]

Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out

Swwwwweeeet! They're going to let me keep my air rifle! :D

I'm going to get a couple more and equip them all with that cool dual trigger do-hickey, before it's banned. ;)

[Box]

As a polite gesture, I will make the appropriate corrections to your gun ban list...
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point20Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.


Corrected Lists can be found below:

















All Privately Owned Firearms





Glad I could help.

[Trapper John]

Insurgency/Counterinsurgency - such a fine line and the definitions depend on which side of the line your standing on.

Great point - see bios for Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Washington, et al. Looks like 2nd Amendment rights are going down! Next- 1st Amendment. Oh wait, the press already capitulated :mad:

[GratefulCitizen]

"...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men..."

Our nation has a charter for government powers.
Certain powers are delegated to offices which are temporarily occupied by some citizens.

Sometimes those who temporarily occupy an office attempt to give themselves powers beyond what were delegated.
This is a usurpation and they are in rebellion against the authority which delegated powers to their office.

The authority which delegated limited powers is clearly stated in the first three words of the charter.
"We the people."

[Badger52]

MR2's & GratefulCitizen's comments are germaine to why I'm currently finding this book (http://www.amazon.com/American-Insurgents-Patriots-Revolution-People/dp/0809024799) an interesting read. The description at the above Amazon link is pretty accurate, as it examines what were individual tipping points in the small towns up & down the colonies by so-called "normal" people, vs. the typical focus on more written-about personages (who were elites of the time) and only what was happening in Boston, NY, and Philly.

Don't think we've seen a local "Committee of Safety" in East Ottertail, MN publicly shame a Fed official & cutoff their comms with DC, or run them outta town in disgrace, yet. Much was organized (and tolerated) in small ways, locally, before the smoke flew during another attempted "assault weapons confiscation raid."

Remains to be seen if another (unlikely) AWB is a tipping point. Or is a simple extra-legal "rule making" by the ATF tolerable?

[Sigaba]

MOO, posts #13 and #14 exemplify the type of selective reading of America's past that is helping to enable the GOP's increasing political ineffectiveness and to sweep it into the dustbin of historical irrelevance.

First, a consideration of the entire Constitution of the United States within its historical context provides numerous opportunities to realize that the founders understood that the new nation would have its growing pains as different institutions and individuals at the federal and state level tested the limits of power and boundaries of authority when it came to the actual governance of the young republic. (Question: If the founders weren't aware that people would push the boundaries, then why did they provide for checks and balances, attempt to protect the federal government from the will of the people, and install mechanisms for changing the constitution? Oh, that's right. The Constitution meant exactly the same thing to everyone who read or heard about it, and all those who voted for its ratification did so for exactly the same reason, just as all those who opposed ratification conformed to the single shared meaning as soon as Rhode Island said "We're in!")

Second, Breen's account, although aimed at a general audience (sell, sell, sell!), is clearly meant to advance an ongoing historiographical debate over the nature/causes/point of no return of the American Revolution that has been going on for generations among specialists of that period. (The reference to "pamphlets" is directed at Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution [1967; enlarged edition, 1992].) While it is always nice to think that a book one is reading breathes fresh air into a vibrant chapter of America's past, a "bottom up" approach to that time period that de-emphasizes New England is not exactly new nor "typical.":rolleyes:

[Old Dog New Trick]

Wolverines!

Oh, wait, wrong thread... :D

[Dozer523]

Sometimes those who temporarily occupy an office attempt to give themselves powers beyond what were delegated.
This is a usurpation and they are in rebellion against the authority which delegated powers to their office.

The authority which delegated limited powers is clearly stated in the first three words of the charter.
"We the people."inconceivable!

[Badger52]

Second, Breen's account, although aimed at a general audience (sell, sell, sell!), is clearly meant to advance an ongoing historiographical debate over the nature/causes/point of no return of the American Revolution that has been going on for generations among specialists of that period. (The reference to "pamphlets" is directed at Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution [1967; enlarged edition, 1992].) While it is always nice to think that a book one is reading breathes fresh air into a vibrant chapter of America's past, a "bottom up" approach to that time period that de-emphasizes New England is not exactly new nor "typical.":rolleyes:Thank you, I was interested in the view from the academic historical perspective bubbling up. Guess I'm part of that general audience. I'm not as deeply immersed in the full body of work available as some others, on this specific topic, specialists as it were. So it is a different look. To clarify a point: While it may have been mentioned in a post, it's not selective reading at this end - just reading.
:)

[Pericles]

No problem, just let me know when you are coming by, and I'll have them ready for you.;)

[Sigaba]

Thank you, I was interested in the view from the academic historical perspective bubbling up. Guess I'm part of that general audience. I'm not as deeply immersed in the full body of work available as some others, on this specific topic, specialists as it were. So it is a different look. To clarify a point: While it may have been mentioned in a post, it's not selective reading at this end - just reading.
:)Had you read end note 1 on pages 300-301 when you wrote the following?The description at the above Amazon link is pretty accurate, as it examines what were individual tipping points in the small towns up & down the colonies by so-called "normal" people, vs. the typical focus on more written-about personages (who were elites of the time) and only what was happening in Boston, NY, and Philly.

[Richard]

I was surprised to see Nerf guns omitted from the list(s). They must have one hell of a lobby.

Richard :munchin

[Badger52]

Had you read end note 1 on pages 300-301 when you wrote the following?Nope, still going through it for the first time but just took a look at that. Thank you, I appreciate that. Looks like a list fit for a Wisconsin winter and a furthering of... well, a 'furthering'.
:)

[Paragrouper]

Excellent list. I'll take it with me to the gun show tomorrow and do a little Christmas shopping. ;)

[Sigaba]

Nope, still going through it for the first time but just took a look at that. Thank you, I appreciate that. Looks like a list fit for a Wisconsin winter and a furthering of... well, a 'furthering'.
:)IME, reading a book by an academic historian is generally more efficient if one reads the end/footnotes as one goes along. YMMV.

[chance]

inconceivable!



"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means":D

[Badger52]

IME, reading a book by an academic historian is generally more efficient if one reads the end/footnotes as one goes along. YMMV.Quite possibly in this case (although it wouldn't have gotten the books on the list read any sooner).* I will sometimes just go through the end-notes at the end and reference back to the material which causes a re-reading of a whole section to reinforce it. In many cases the experience isn't about efficiency at all; there's actually a readable story going on.

* Efficiency, in my estimation, would be footnoting the thing as the author takes the reader along, but that's just me.
:)

[Roguish Lawyer]

MOO, posts #13 and #14 exemplify the type of selective reading of America's past that is helping to enable the GOP's increasing political ineffectiveness and to sweep it into the dustbin of historical irrelevance.

First, a consideration of the entire Constitution of the United States within its historical context provides numerous opportunities to realize that the founders understood that the new nation would have its growing pains as different institutions and individuals at the federal and state level tested the limits of power and boundaries of authority when it came to the actual governance of the young republic. (Question: If the founders weren't aware that people would push the boundaries, then why did they provide for checks and balances, attempt to protect the federal government from the will of the people, and install mechanisms for changing the constitution? Oh, that's right. The Constitution meant exactly the same thing to everyone who read or heard about it, and all those who voted for its ratification did so for exactly the same reason, just as all those who opposed ratification conformed to the single shared meaning as soon as Rhode Island said "We're in!")

Second, Breen's account, although aimed at a general audience (sell, sell, sell!), is clearly meant to advance an ongoing historiographical debate over the nature/causes/point of no return of the American Revolution that has been going on for generations among specialists of that period. (The reference to "pamphlets" is directed at Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution [1967; enlarged edition, 1992].) While it is always nice to think that a book one is reading breathes fresh air into a vibrant chapter of America's past, a "bottom up" approach to that time period that de-emphasizes New England is not exactly new nor "typical.":rolleyes:

What's your point?

[Sigaba]

Quite possibly in this case (although it wouldn't have gotten the books on the list read any sooner).* I will sometimes just go through the end-notes at the end and reference back to the material which causes a re-reading of a whole section to reinforce it. In many cases the experience isn't about efficiency at all; there's actually a readable story going on.In this specific case, reading the endnotes along with the principal text enables patient readers to see three points clearly. First, Professor Breen is taking up an argument that has been advanced a great deal over the last twenty plus years, and, therefore, he's not breaking new ground to the extent he suggests.

Second, some of the works he doesn't mention might cover the ground as well as he does, if not better.* Breen states "I can list here only a few of the more provocative and original works[....]" but in doing so he mentions the abridged version of Nash's The Urban Crucible published in 1986 rather than the longer, original version, published in 1979. And he also omits entirely from the list of works Nash's more recent The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to Create America (2005). Similarly, while he mentions Royster, he neglects a contingent of military historians who have advanced similar arguments of a revolution from the bottom up over the past several decades. (See, for example, the works discussed here (http://web.bvu.edu/faculty/feis/ftcd/01%20Chapter%201%20and%202%20Bibs.pdf) and there (http://web.bvu.edu/faculty/feis/ftcd/03%20Chapter%203%20Bibs.pdf).)

Third, despite all of Breen's discussion of "popular resistance," he does not pay a lot of attention to the roles women did and did not play in that resistance.

* Efficiency, in my estimation, would be footnoting the thing as the author takes the reader along, but that's just me.
:)AFIAK, the footnote vs. endnote decision is the publisher's call, not the writer's. Endnotes with truncated citations, allow for the more economically efficient use of pages. And some publishers think that the aesthetics of footnotes distracts general readers.

________________________________________
* MOO, one of the primary duties of an academic historian is to frame his/her work within the context of the relevant scholarly debates, even if doing so may impact sales of a work aimed at general audiences.

[Sigaba]

What's your point?My point is that the American political right's treatment of American history undermines its ability to achieve its political agenda.

Too many on the right act as if matters of continued debate were settled in the late eighteenth century.

[Badger52]

AFIAK, the footnote vs. endnote decision is the publisher's call, not the writer's. Endnotes with truncated citations, allow for the more economically efficient use of pages. And some publishers think that the aesthetics of footnotes distracts general readers.Ok, potato, potahto.

As to relative merit of a particular book (singular, 1 each), I raised it into the discussion simply to put forth the idea that America hasn't - in my view - reached the point of intolerance discussed during that period. I could've made that statement without a source of any kind, still believing it true, but perhaps not the best practice. Whether a particular author has been remiss in a collection of citations I can't say; I am obviously not a scholar in that area. I don't think a peer review of the citations present or missing, in one academician's work or another's, changes the point I made originally.

So I'll continue with this book, and read another at some point. As a suggestion, try going back to my post #14 and re-read it, with less attention to the 1st paragraph and a particular author. Try this:
Don't think we've seen a local "Committee of Safety" in East Ottertail, MN publicly shame a Fed official & cutoff their comms with DC, or run them outta town in disgrace, yet. Much was organized (and tolerated) in small ways, locally, before the smoke flew during another attempted "assault weapons confiscation raid."

Remains to be seen if another (unlikely) AWB is a tipping point. Or is a simple extra-legal "rule making" by the ATF tolerable?
:)

[Roguish Lawyer]

My point is that the American political right's treatment of American history undermines its ability to achieve its political agenda.

Too many on the right act as if matters of continued debate were settled in the late eighteenth century.

Original intent is important for the same reasons legislative history is important in understanding an ambiguous text. There is a process for amending the Constitution if people want to change it. Judges are not supposed to be part of that process.

And before you continue arguing that political realities allow liberal judges to rewrite the Constitution when they feel like it, you might think about the fact that we could just start killing people we don't agree with since we could theoretically do that too. The Rule of Law depends on judges to restrain themselves, not pursue their political agendas from the bench. That's the same Rule of Law that we all depend upon to avoid Hobbesian reality, so you might take it more seriously.

P.S. WTF is "MOO"? Is there a connection with "and so it goes . . ."? :D

[Sigaba]

...I raised it into the discussion simply to put forth the idea that America hasn't - in my view - reached the point of intolerance discussed during that period.Well, since you put it that way.:D

MOO, while history doesn't repeat itself and while I think that America has been through worse crises than the ones we currently face, I'm increasingly concerned with the way many Americans are perceiving current events as the results of orchestrated conspiracies among those in power who willfully disregard the rule of law to the exclusion of other explanations. I think that if people on both sides of the aisle don't do more to challenge this perception, it may end up being the reality.

YMMV.

[BOfH]

P.S. WTF is "MOO"? Is there a connection with "and so it goes . . ."? :D

MOO is like WTF and YMMV, with a definite connection to "and so it goes..." and "There you go again...". Now if you ask my two year old, he might tell you that MOO comes from the opposite bovine pole of YMMV. Then again maybe its all the same. :D

[mojaveman]

Excellent list. I'll take it with me to the gun show tomorrow and do a little Christmas shopping.

I better come home for a quick vacation and pick up one of those PTR-91s that I've been wanting for awhile.

[Noah Werka]

The US has been in decline since the socialist FDR took office. WWII awoke the people for a short time and they went to work on the job at hand...winning the war. After it had been hard won, they started dozing off again. Ever since the power hungry Johnson slipped in his "Great Society", they have been in a coma. There have been gun grabs ever since 1934, but fortunately for the US, not all have been napping. For those of you guys that haven't read Unintended Consequences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences_%28novel%29) by John Ross have missed out on a good read. It can be downloaded free in PDF(3.8 MB-749pp) HERE (http://www.zjstech.net/~ddixson/Unintended_Consequences.pdf).

Noah W

[trvlr]

The US has been in decline since the socialist FDR took office.

Yup, the only time America was a great nation was during the
Roaring Twenties :boohoo