Would the Glock 17 and CZ 75B Be Banned Under Feinstein's Bill?

[JM44-40]

Good Afternoon,

Spent a lot of time reviewing the actual text of her bill last night and this morning. A lot of it is put in place by amending "Title 18, United States Code." Very tricky.

One must be careful as her bill says (just one example) "such and such" will be inserted at Section 921(1), etc., of Title 18, U S Code. She inserts stuff all through the code. So, therefore, one must really pull up both documents and compare to make sure exactly what's in her bill and the effect of it if passed in some form.

My concern is this: On page 4, line 1, of her bill it states "(v) A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm...
This is under "semi-automatic pistols."

Now, the Glock 17 was designed and produced well before the Glock 18, therefore the Glock 18 would be an automatic version of the Glock 17. The 17 is not a semi-automatic version of the 18. It's the other way around. It looks to me like the "17" is ok. This would also apply to the CZ 75.

Thanks

What do you think?


Also, after extensively looking through the bill, the requirement she threatened in December that all "grandfathered" items be registered, owner fingerprinted, picture taken, etc. is not there. I guess they figure they can slip that in later.

This must be soundly defeated. Do you agree or disagree on the Glock 17?

 

[marshalldylan]

DC v. Heller protects semi auto handguns. The popular self defense reasoning for handguns from that case should apply to rifles. I just can't see them banning any semi auto handguns.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

Good Afternoon,

Spent a lot of time reviewing the actual text of her bill last night and this morning. A lot of it is put in place by amending "Title 18, United States Code." Very tricky.

One must be careful as her bill says (just one example) "such and such" will be inserted at Section 921(1), etc., of Title 18, U S Code. She inserts stuff all through the code. So, therefore, one must really pull up both documents and compare to make sure exactly what's in her bill and the effect of it if passed in some form.

My concern is this: On page 4, line 1, of her bill it states "(v) A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm...
This is under "semi-automatic pistols."

Now, the Glock 17 was designed and produced well before the Glock 18, therefore the Glock 18 would be an automatic version of the Glock 17. The 17 is not a semi-automatic version of the 18. It's the other way around. It looks to me like the "17" is ok. This would also apply to the CZ 75.

Thanks

What do you think?


Also, after extensively looking through the bill, the requirement she threatened in December that all "grandfathered" items be registered, owner fingerprinted, picture taken, etc. is not there. I guess they figure they can slip that in later.

This must be soundly defeated. Do you agree or disagree on the Glock 17?

You don't really expect them to do any research and find out what is and what isn't do you?

All they want to know is "if it has a thingy that goes here and when you pull this, it goes bang!" It should be banned!

Once you understand how they think, everything else make sense.

 

[chuter]

You don't really expect them to do any research and find out what is and what isn't do you?

All they want to know is "if it has a thingy that goes here and when you pull this, it goes bang!" It should be banned!

Once you understand how they think, everything else make sense.

+1 on this. Logic has nothing to do with what they want to do.

 

[SMS]

Good Afternoon,

Spent a lot of time reviewing the actual text of her bill last night and this morning. A lot of it is put in place by amending "Title 18, United States Code." Very tricky.

Not really tricky...that's how the majority of legislation comes about. Our own recent Open Carry law was accomplished through the amendment of existing law.

You raise some good questions about the 17 and CZ, but truthfully I'm not spending much time picking apart that *****'s proposal....it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting through Congress....not even the Dem controlled Senate is going to touch this.

 

[JM44-40]

Not really tricky...that's how the majority of legislation comes about. Our own recent Open Carry law was accomplished through the amendment of existing law.

You raise some good questions about the 17 and CZ, but truthfully I'm not spending much time picking apart that *****'s proposal....it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting through Congress....not even the Dem controlled Senate is going to touch this.

Understand and agree totally with you and the other posts; I just believe in the old Sun Tzu quote: "know thy enemy."

 

[freewookie]

+1 on this. Logic has nothing to do with what they want to do.

Exactly right. I saw "308 Match" as one of the banned rifles. Huh?

 

[RyanSixer]

I was wondering about semi-autos as well. I looked for Glocks on her list, and it wasnt there. I hope y'all are right about congress.

 

[JM44-40]

I was wondering about semi-autos as well. I looked for Glocks on her list, and it wasnt there. I hope y'all are right about congress.

Hopefully like others have said, her bill won't see the light of day. "Words" are the weapons these people use.

You can't just go by the list; you have to look at the exact text of the proposed bill. They'll make a list --- and then ban a whole class of arms that aren't on the list with a few "words" deep in the text. What concerned me was this from the text: page 4, line 1, of her bill it states "(v) A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm...
This is under "semi-automatic pistols.

I know about the Glock 18 and CZ 75 full auto's; but, they came later --- they are auto versions of semi-auto pistols. Don't know about the Beretta 92 full auto, and I think Sig makes a full auto also but am not sure.

If they don't get this bill to the floor of the Senate, they will try to attach it to another. I believe this is the way they did it in '94.

In all honesty I'm more worried about "Universal Background Check" getting passed.

I found this on another forum; it's long, but the Thread was entitled "What gun owners face." These people are in it for the long haul. They aren't going away...

Daily Kos member
ProfileDiaries (list)Stream
FRI DEC 21, 2012 AT 03:20 AM PST
How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
bysporksFollow
138 Comments / 138 New
It's nice that we're finally talking about gun control. It's very sad that it took such a terrible tragedy to talk about it, but I'm glad the conversation is happening. I hear a lot about assault weapon and large magazine bans, and whilst I'm supportive of that, it won't solve the problem. The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.

Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don't want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza's assault weapon was. Even more guns are chambered for more powerful rounds, like the .30-06 or (my personal "favorite") 7.62x54R. Even a .22, the smallest round manufactured on a large scale, can kill easily. In fact, some say the .22 kills more people than any other round out there.

Again, I like that we're talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. Remember the beltway sniper back in 2002? The one who killed a dozen odd people? Even though he used a bushmaster assault rifle, he only fired one round at a time before moving. He could have used literally any rifle sold in the US for his attacks.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can't. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it:

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.

Now, maybe he sold them or they got lost or something. But it gives us a good target for investigation. A nice visit by the ATF or state police to find out if he really does still have those guns would be certainly warranted. It's certainly not perfect. People may have gotten guns from parents or family, and not registered them. Perfect is the enemy of pretty darn good, as they say. This exercise isn't so much to track down every gun ever sold; the main idea would be to profile and investigate people that may not have registered their guns. As an example, I'm not so concerned with the guy who bought that bolt action Mauser a decade ago and doesn't have anything registered to his name. It's a pretty good possibility that he sold it, gave it away, or got rid of it somehow. And even if he didn't, that guy is not who I'm concerned with. I'm concerned that other guy who bought a half dozen assault weapons, registered two hunting rifles, and belongs to the NRA/GOA. He's the guy who warrants a raid.

So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported. This would put the murder machine corporations out of business for good, and cut the money supply to the NRA/GOA. As money dries up, the political capital needed for new controls will be greatly reduced.

There are a few other things I would suggest. I would suggest an immediate, national ban on concealed carry. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer. Microstamping would also be a very good thing. Even if the only thing it does is drive up costs, it could still lead to crimes being solved. I'm willing to try every advantage we can get.

A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I'm not sure if it's necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.

We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.

I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don't want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member. I'm sure you don't either. So lets stop looking for short term solutions and start looking long term. Registration is the first step.

Tell Pres. Obama and democrats in congress to demand mandatory, comprehensive gun registration. It's the only way we can ban guns with any effectiveness.

TAGS
FutureGuns
POLL
A total gun ban in the next 10 years?

A red flag should always be raised when these people use words like "universal" and "comprehensive."

That's lawyer talk for anything they want. We're in for a long, tough fight to stop this sh*t; must stay on top of it and be ever vigilant.