Both had disastrous results.......it is not a given that you can... "just bury them".....
Pretty sure that’s a euphemism akin to a boating accident...?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
That’s what vacuum sealers are for.Know of a couple of people who have buried weapons..........after a couple of years or so, they dug them up.........
Both had disastrous results.......it is not a given that you can... "just bury them".....
That’s what vacuum sealers, and desiccants are for.
Ever read the text of the original Metzenbaum bill for an assault rifle ban from the late 1980s? That was the initial legislation upon which the 1994 ban was based.
The first draft defined as an "assault rifle" any firearm that took a detachable magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds and could be converted into a rifle. Since 99.9% of semi-auto handguns can be fitted with an extended magazine, a long barrel, and a shoulder stock, that first draft of the "assault rifle" legislation actually would have outlawed just about every semi-auto handgun in existence.
Yeah, re-classifying pistols as SBRs definitely seems like something they would do.
The tax stamp is nothing more than a receipt you paid a tax to construct a or purchase something. I doubt it covers you as get our of jail free card when the semi auto ban comes down.
No. The original language regarding magazines not in the grip was that they were banned, period. I remember thinking that the Olympic shooters using Walthers would be disappointed.I thought that was relating to magazines not in the grip.
I'm thinking there had to be an earlier version. That version uses a list of named firearms; my memory is that that tactic was only employed after the first versions were ridiculed as over-broad. The version I'm remembering actually tried to give a real, generalized definition.Text: S.386 — 101st Congress (1989-1990)All Information (Except Text)
There is one version of the bill.
I'm thinking there had to be an earlier version. That version uses a list of named firearms; my memory is that that tactic was only employed after the first versions were ridiculed as over-broad. The version I'm remembering actually tried to give a real, generalized definition.
Maybe I'm just hallucinating it all. I will note, however, that even the text of this version is horrifically broad, given that "firearms which are substantially identical" can be interpreted pretty much any way a gun-banner wants to.
`(10) is a rimfire weapon that employs a tubular magazine with a magazine
capacity of six rounds or less;
So my Marlin Bolt Action 22 that my father got as a teenager would have been an assault weapon because its magazine tube holds 20 rounds?
I guess I should have pasted the sub heading above which states:Wouldn't the wording of "6 rounds or less" mean anything over 6 rounds is legal?
Or was it saying below 7 rounds is legal?
I confess to not reading it.
`(10) is a rimfire weapon that employs a tubular magazine with a magazine
capacity of six rounds or less;
So my Marlin Bolt Action 22 that my father got as a teenager would have been an assault weapon because its magazine tube holds 20 rounds?