[MikeB]

I was visiting the Taurus web site today to get more information about the PT 24/7 when I saw an ad saying that if you purchase a Taurus gun they will send you a free high capacity magazine. As I was reading the details of the offer, I noticed that it said that the current federal ban on high capacity magazines will expire on September 14th.

I did a search on Google about the topic and it gave a little information about some Senators wanting to extend the law and President Bush supporting the ban.

Does anybody know if the ban will be lifted for high capacity magazines or will the ban be extended?

Also, if anybody owns or has shot a PT 24/7, tell me what you think of this gun since I considering purchasing it.

 

[Charlie Petty]

I've shot it and have no gripes. The grip feels really good and the DAO trigger isn't bad.

The assault weapons ban will sunset unless congress acts before the expiration. They could shove something through in days if they want to, so don't get your hopes up yet.

Besides, the only people who want high caps are those who plan on missing a bunch :twisted:

 

[Guest]

Aaaaaaa. I tend to think differently then most IRT Magazines capacity..

(i.e. Beretta 92 9mm)

Reduced - Current 10 Rounders
Normal - 15 Rounds
Hi-Cap - those 30 rounders you usta coulda got.

I've of two minds on the assault weapon ban. If it doens't sunset we'll live with it like we have been.

If it does then it opens the door for future (more restrictive) legislation. (keep in mind some of the things that have happened since it first when into effect, i.e. those wacko's shooting people from concealment with high powered rifles (that the press called Sniper Rifles). You see how they defined "Assault" rifle in the ban... wouldn't ya just love to see how they define "Sniper" rifle?!?

Back to the Magazine limit... the Genius of John Browning never ceases to amaze me... not only did he develop the perfect fighting handgun (even though Gaston Glock thinks he did) but he forsaw (much like Nostrodomus (sp?) the Assault Weapon Ban and it's magazine limitation stipulation and accounted for this in his design. :lol:

 

[Dean Speir]

Hola, MikeB…

Now there's a name which will doubtless cause some confusion on this Forum.

Kinda surprised that you don't know chapter and verse about the "Assault Weapons" {sic} portion of the 1994 Clinton Crime Bill. But since you don't, here's some information for you: Still a Battle to be Won.

The "sunset" still isn't a done deal… Schmit's right on the "we've learned to live with it, and will doubtless continue to do so should it be re-enacted" part.

But there's several aspects of this to consider:

1. Bush43's transparent little ploy to have it both ways demonstrates his cynical "playing" of the pro-Second Amendment voters, and ultimately his lack of commitment to our firearms freedoms.[/*:g19pk22p]
   
2. Kerry's a little more open about it, although he's hoping that his two shotgunning photo-ops over the past nine months will gull the not-too-astute firearms-owning faction into thinking he's not "anti-gun." (DOH! He's a freakin' Democrat from Massachusetts, for the love of Michael Dukakis!!!)[/*:g19pk22p]
   
3. Charlie's right… this could be re-enacted at any moment, and it's long been my contention that unless Bush43 has the head of Usama Bin Laden on the Oval Office desk by the Ides of August, in an effort to under-mine the Kerry Juggernaut, he'll signal DeLay to let some version of Feinstein Bill, but one drafted by a Republican, out onto the floor for a vote.[/*:g19pk22p]
   
4. Even if the AWB "sunsets" by its own provisions, how long before Kerry is inaugurated as the 44th Chief Executive, do you think it will take him to sign an Executive Order to re-enable the AWB's provisions while his Congressional crew enacts a newer and harsher ban?!?[/*:g19pk22p]

Essentially, I think we're screwed!

 

[csmkersh]

If it does (sunset) then it opens the door for future (more restrictive) legislation. (keep in mind some of the things that have happened since it first when into effect, i.e. those wacko's shooting people from concealment with high powered rifles (that the press called Sniper Rifles). You see how they defined "Assault" rifle in the ban... wouldn't ya just love to see how they define "Sniper" rifle?!?

Gunny, the "renewal" legislation currently on the Senate Calendar is far more restrictive than the original AWB. Congress reconvenes Sept 7th and all it took was 15 minutes for the b***ards to pass the Hughes Amendment in 1986.

Dean, you probably correct, Kerry 44 would do and Executive Order like Bush 41 did on imports, and like B-41's edict, it would wind up in US Code Title 18 some weeks down the road. And if Bush 43 remains in office, we still don't have a friend in the Weißes Haus.

Other than a third War of Independance, I agree that we're screwed no matter what.

 

[LIProgun]

FWIW

This was my response submitted earlier today to a post on rec.guns stating that the ban would be renewed simply because Pres. Bush claims to support renewal:

Congress is already in recess until September 7. The ban sunsets September 13. If you want to, you can believe that both the House and Senate will each hold committee meetings on renewal legislation; then hold debate (including motions to amend); then vote; then send the differing versions of the bills to House-Senate Conference Committee, who must reconcile the bills in conference; then, if the bills can be reconciled, each debate and hold votes on the Conference Report; and then -- assuming passage in both chambers -- send the final bill to President Bush, who will then find no objections and sign the bill -- all within six days.

Now, is it technically possible for all of this to happen before September 13? Sure. But just remember that it took well over a decade to pass the ban in the first place; that it took severe cajoling and horse-trading by Bill Clinton to buy votes (e.g., changing NY GOP Representative Pete King's vote in favor of the bill by allowing the IRA's Gerry Adams entry to the White House); that the VPC is already spinning the ban as useless and the sunset as meaningless (because a stronger ban is necessary); that passage of the ban was widely acknowledged (by Bill Clinton and others) as having cost the Democrats several Congressional seats; that Al Gore's defeat was due in part to his support for gun control and that the DNC has identified gun control as a losing issue (which they need to dress-up as "gun safety"); that the haughty, French-looking John Kerry (who, by the way, also served in Vietnam), hasn't really mentioned the AWB and hasn't tried to hold it against Dubya for not pressing for the renewal of the ban; that Majority Leader Tom DeLay isn't letting a renewal bill reach the floor of the House, and that many members of the House don't want to have to vote on a renewal bill two months before they're up for reelection.
---

I also forgot to add that the House was under different leadership, and the ban vote sent entrenched politicos like Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks packing. I could probably come up with a dozen more good reasons why the ban is unilikely to be renewed if I thought about it for a few more minutes.

 

[LIProgun]

I disagree that Kerry or any president would even try to reenact a ban via executive order. Bush 41 was able to get away with his import ban because it involved foreign commerce and ATF's statutory oversight role in determining what firearms are "suitable for sporting purposes," and could therefore be imported. There is no "sporting purposes" test in GCA 1968 (or any other federal law) that would allow a domestic ban on sale or possession of semi-autos. [I refuse to indulge in wildly speculative scenarios, such as the president declaring a national emergency, suspending gun and ammo sales, empowering FEMA to start confiscating our guns, etc. -- at least for now.]

The closest parallel I could think of is the redesignation of revolving cylinder shotguns as destructive devices, which caused only minor ripples with the public becuase there were comparably few of these in private hands. If such a redesignation were tried with semiautos I believe it would likely fall to a legal challenge (since firearms below .50 caliber do not fit into the definition of destructive devices) and the public outcry would be deafening.

Also, there is no "Kerry Juggernaut." In fact, the bozo didn't even get the post-convention "bounce" he was supposed to. Some polls showed him losing ground after the convention. Even McGovern didn't do that poorly. If Bush signed any renewal bill prior to its sunset, irate gun owners would, instead of holding their noses and voting for Bush, sit on their hands in droves and let Kerry win by default. Bush is not about to step on so many toes right before the election.

 

[JRWnTN]

[*] Even if the AWB "sunsets" by its own provisions, how long before Kerry is inaugurated as the 44th Chief Executive, do you think it will take him to sign an Executive Order to re-enable the AWB's provisions while his Congressional crew enacts a newer and harsher ban?!?[/*] Essentially, I think we're screwed!

I agree with LIProgun. There would have to be some major legal gymnastics involved. I'm not convinced a president's authority to issue executive orders would allow him to prohibit domestically produced firearms with the characterics defined by the AWB.

 

[csmkersh]

If Bush signed any renewal bill prior to its sunset, irate gun owners would, instead of holding their noses and voting for Bush, sit on their hands in droves and let Kerry win by default. Bush is not about to step on so many toes right before the election.

I wrote the Bush-43 back in January and asked very specifically where he stood. To no one's surprise, he's failed to respond.

I'm not convinced a president's authority to issue executive orders would allow him to prohibit domestically produced firearms with the characterics defined by the AWB

I think he'd do it in a heart beat if he thought it would gain more votes than it would lose. After all, he declared he thought the McCain-Feingold bill was unconstitutional but signed it anyway. The legallity of it would be a matter for the SC to decide. If done under the guise of "national emergency" or some such foolishness, I think the Court would give him a bye.

 

[Alarmed]

I think the repubs in general & this administration in particular take the gun owners votes for granite. Remember papa Bush's adviser Lee Atwater said "where else will they go?".

 

[BigMike]

Holding out for Hi-Caps

Just acquired my latest Barbecue Gun, a fancy 40SW. Came with two 10 rd mags. LEOs can get "high capacity" 12 rd mags for the same gun (20% better?). Store offered to sell me some more 10 rounders. I said I'd wait until mid-September.

IF the Assault Weapons Ban dies, as we hope & pray, will dealers be able _legally_ to sell us ordinary taxpaying citizens those magazines that were marked for LEO / Government use only?

If a LEO or Gummint type has so marked magazines in his/her personal legal possession, can I buy one (after mid-Sep '04) ?

Is anyone making 11 round or better magazines _unmarked_ and stocking them for sale to the public?

Can anyone say something definite about it, i.e. more than just speculation and wishful thinking?

 

[csmkersh]

Posted on Wed, Aug. 04, 2004

Hastert accused of misleading comments on assault weapons ban

BY JIM PUZZANGHERA
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Less than six weeks before the federal assault-weapons ban expires, some supporters of an extension charged House Speaker Dennis Hastert on Wednesday with misleading the country after he said the Senate had already defeated it.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/ne ... 321777.htm

Please pay close attention to the next to last paragraph. There may be a sell-out in the works.

 

[TBeck]

Remember papa Bush's adviser Lee Atwater said "where else will they go?".

I guess Bush 41 discovered the answer to that one didn't he?

Gun control is a loser issue. That has been demonstrated during the last couple election cycles. The libs are screeching as expected but all the conservatives have to do is nothing. Even Denny Hastert can pull that off.

 

[Alarmed]

But, remember, Hastert is not really a pro gun guy. He's a weanie that got put into that posistion to appease the libs & make the House look less antagonistic.

Remember right before April 19, 1995, (anybody remember what happened that day?) Newt lead the house to pass legislation to overturn the law & then that damn Bob Dole said the senate had no plans to even look at it, this when they had the votes to do it.

As long as congress is in session, the American public is subject to being screwed at a moments notice without its knowledge.

 

[LIProgun]

Re: Holding out for Hi-Caps

IF the Assault Weapons Ban dies, as we hope & pray, will dealers be able _legally_ to sell us ordinary taxpaying citizens those magazines that were marked for LEO / Government use only?

If a LEO or Gummint type has so marked magazines in his/her personal legal possession, can I buy one (after mid-Sep '04) ?

Is anyone making 11 round or better magazines _unmarked_ and stocking them for sale to the public?

Can anyone say something definite about it, i.e. more than just speculation and wishful thinking?

When [if?] the law sunsets, there will be no federal law prohibiting the sale, transfer, or possession of LEO marked standard capacity mags. It really is that simple. The markings will be meaningless from a legal standpoint.

As for production, I have heard that pre-orders are being taken for standard-capacity Glock mags. I would say it is a safe bet that many producers are making such mags now. If the ban does not sunset, the mags could later be stamped for LEO use.

 

[Tim Burke]

the only people who want high caps are those who plan on missing a bunch

This is largely true, but some of the game shooters want high caps to reload less frequently.
Then there are those of us that are just annoyed by the law, even though we prefer single stacks.

 

[Dean Speir]

Empirical math…

(20% better?)

Or 16.7% if one wants to head the other direction…

 

[Texansfan]

Hola, MikeB…

DeLay to let some version of Feinstein Bill, but one drafted by a Republican, out onto the floor for a vote.

DeLay has vowed not to let this on the floor of the house. As far as I know he is 100% committed to preventing this. Anything is possible, but there would be a hell of a lot of pissed off Texans if this happened.

I know my second post on this board should not be about politics, but... i did it anyway .

John in Texas

:lol: