Please be mindful that there are many different views on the forums. The only thing we all agree on is the AR-10 is an awesome rifle!

Proof that what we are saying is getting through

More
11 years 11 months ago #15977 by VTIT
Proof that what we are saying is getting through was created by VTIT
This just in: www.gunownersofvermont.org/baruth-to-wit...ing-assault-weapons/

:clap: :dance:

Maybe all the writing, petitioning and networking we are doing is finally starting to get attention. I was at a rally for 2A in Montpelier over the weekend. I think it finally got through. YEEEHAWWWW. Looks like I may not have to move to another state after all.
The following user(s) said Thank You: fivewhy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 11 months ago - 11 years 11 months ago #15979 by fivewhy
Replied by fivewhy on topic Proof that what we are saying is getting through
ahhh that made my day!

Of note, the VT bill actually used the same exact definitional language as the old federal AWB. I find a problem with this in that everyone (pro-ban folks) knows that is not a realistically workable definition. See leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/Intro/S-032.pdf scroll to pdf page 3-10.

The VT bill specifically exempts the mini 14 (and 30) from the ban (which is good), but I am not sure if the original AWB had these exemptions (I believe the old AWB did not list any exemptions to ban). It also exempts a number of bolt and lever action rifles (Rem 700, Rug M77, Brown M81, etc), and others. I find this odd. Why expressly exempt a bunch of bolt and lever rifles when the initial definition specifically only bans semi auto rifles? This indicates poor bill drafting to me (unless I am missing something). I do not believe any proposed new federal ban will suffer from such haphazard drafting....tho I could be surprised.

Also, (others may have more info on this), I am not sure any AR10 variant is a "copy or duplicate" of a "Colt AR-15", even though the language says "in any caliber." If anything, the AR15 is a copy or duplicate of the AR10 but not vice versa. Now this error was resolved by a proposed re authorization of the AWB, in 2007, which specifically listed the AR10 and also used a more workable definition of assault weapon (a bad thing). www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr1022/text This failed 2007 re auth specifically includes the mini 14 in the ban, the opposite of what the pulled VT bill did. And, it does not appear to me that the 2007 re-auth lists any express exemptions to the ban..if it does I can't find them.

Anyway....I'm offtopic. The VT ban being pulled is awesome bc it is a strong indicator of public sentiment. "Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces [judicial] decisions. He [who molds sentiment] makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed." -Abraham Lincoln, First Lincoln-Douglas Debate, 1858.
Last edit: 11 years 11 months ago by fivewhy.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 11 months ago #15980 by Siscowet
Replied by Siscowet on topic Proof that what we are saying is getting through
My hope is that when the current AWB is defeated, which I think it will be, that it forces both government and society to look at the real problems that have caused these issues and put together an effective response. The NRA happens to be right as to the need for a complete review of mental health issues and treatment in this country. And while some of you may disagree, that needs to be part of any effective background check program. I find it interesting that sexual predator release and relocation is (rightfully so) listed on local newscasts, but a warning list of potential violent unstable people is not available for background checks to gun stores. There are way too many instances of things like this that could be tightened up, and leave us our rights.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 11 months ago #15981 by VTIT
Replied by VTIT on topic Proof that what we are saying is getting through
The only thing that concerns me about using mental health issues in a background check is getting off the blacklist once you are put on. We have all heard the horror stories about the no-fly-list and how hard it is to get off that. I can imagine someone coming back from Afghanistan with PTSD, going to the doctor, working out his problems and then not ever being able to buy a gun ever again.
I agree there needs to be a piece of the background check that checks your mental health but will it stop people from ever going to the doctors? If I already have a gun and go to a psychiatrist to work out some issues will they make it mandatory for that psychiatrist to notify BATFE and they will come confiscate my guns? If that is written into this law no one will ever seek treatment. And they will get a gun illegally and no one will ever know.
Before they put the first person on that blacklist there needs to be a mechanism to get off that list. We need to check whether someone is stable and I'll back that decision but tread carefully before you make it the law of the land. And PULEEEEZ don't make it part of the TSA!

Just my :twocents:
The following user(s) said Thank You: kew1sg

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 11 months ago #15987 by Siscowet
Replied by Siscowet on topic Proof that what we are saying is getting through
Some very good points VTIT. :I-agree:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.