Illinois so Called Assault Weapons & .50 Caliber Rifle Ban and NJ Wants a Ammo Ban

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,127
3,031
258
Sunnydale
#1
I'm sure its just for your own safety. I'm sure criminals are using 50 cal rifles to rob stores and invade homes.

Across the river in Illinois, it's that time of year again--time for the push for extremist 'gun control' laws. Right on schedule, three were introduced yesterday.
First, we have HB 1294. This bill would ban so-called "assault weapons," .50 caliber rifles and ammunition, and magazines capable of holding 11 or more rounds of ammunition. The ban extends to possessing, buying/selling, and manufacturing--so long to the tax revenue and good jobs provided by companies like Rock River Arms, Armalite, D.S Arms, and probably others. What's more, the law would be confiscatory:
Provides that these provisions do not apply to a person who possessed a prohibited weapon, device, or attachment before the effective date of this amendatory Act if the person has provided proof of ownership to the Department of State Police within 90 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act.


Who keeps sales receipts for every rifle, magazine, and round of .50 caliber ammo? Representative Edward Acevedo (more on him in a minute) has introduced identical legislation for years now (at least as far back as 2005)--he is passionately anti-rights.
Next up is HB 1599. This one builds on HB 1294, by making an Unlawful Use of Weapons charge more serious (making a crime "more illegaller," as we gun rights advocates like to say), if the offender is in possession of an "assault weapon" or "high capacity ammunition(?)" at the time of the offense. What, pray tell, is "high capacity ammunition"? Good question. The answer, on the other hand, is not so good:
"High capacity ammunition" means ammunition of 50 or more caliber.
Not only is that bizarre use of the term "high capacity," blogger Thirdpower notes that the definition makes no distinction between rifle and pistol ammunition on the one hand, and shotgun shells (which are all, accept for .410 bore cartridges, greater than .50 caliber) on the other.
Finally, we have HB 1855, which could render an Illinois resident ineligible to own firearms or ammunition, simply for failing to report to the police the loss or theft of a firearm within 72 hours of knowing about it (how it is determined when the owner found out is left unexplained). In other words, now an obligation is imposed on a crime victim, which the victim must meet or be victimized again, by the state.
All three of these bills were introduced by Rep. Edward Acevedo, a Chicago Democrat (of course). He is both an anti-rights politician and a Chicago "Only One." Let's hope he has the drinking and anger issues under control by now.
If HB 1294 passes, Acevedo and friends will have another problem. We "assault weapon" owners won't feel compelled to present our "proof of ownership"--proving that our hands aren't cold and dead will be enough--and Acevedo is not likely to enjoy that proof.


 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,127
3,031
258
Sunnydale
#2
And from the worst state in the union.

New Jersey: Assembly Committee to Consider Ammo Ban & More

Friday, January 27, 2012


Contact members of the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee Today!

On Monday, January 30, the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider Assembly Bill 588 and Assembly Bill 1013. The hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. in Committee Room 16, 4th Floor, State House Annex in Trenton.

Sponsored by Assemblyman L. Grace Spencer (D-29), A588 is cleverly disguised as police safety legislation aimed at armor piercing ammunition (which is already prohibited under federal and state law). The measure actually opens the door to a sweeping ammunition ban by an unelected public official by executive fiat. Common hunting, target, and self-defense ammunition would be subject to ban, along with BB's, airgun pellets, and non-metallic ammunition like plastic airsoft pellets, if the Attorney General decides that they pose a threat to the safety and well being of law enforcement.

Although the bill only mentions handgun ammunition, it is in fact not limited to handgun ammunition, and would apply to all rifle ammunition for which a handgun is ever made. As an increasing number of gun manufacturers make handgun models that shoot rifle caliber ammunition, the line between "handgun” vs. "rifle” ammunition has become blurred, and the New Jersey State Police have already begun treating rifle ammunition in this category as if it were handgun ammunition for regulatory purposes. As long as a handgun exists that shoots a particular caliber of rifle ammunition, New Jersey treats that ammunition as if it were handgun ammunition.

The Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee is also scheduled to consider A1013 which is sponsored by Assemblyman Charles Mainor (D-31). A1013 would criminalize the use of a defaced or stolen firearm that is used to injure a police officer and enhances penalties for defacing a firearm. One provision of this police safety legislation significantly increases the penalties relating to "defaced” firearms. Because of New Jersey's longstanding poorly crafted definition of "defaced” firearms, it is possible that refinishing a firearm, or long-term damage from rust or scratches from ordinary wear and tear, could be deemed "defacement” subjecting honest gun owners to lengthy prison sentences, even though identifying information on the firearm is still legible.

Please contact members of the Assembly Committee on Law and Public Safety and respectfully urge them to OPPOSE both A588 and A1013. Members can be contacted by calling (609) 292-5135. You can also find district office phone numbers and e-mail addresses below.

Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee:

Assemblyman Charles Mainor (D-31), Chairman
AsmMainor@njleg.org
201-536-7851

Assemblyman Gilbert L. Wilson (D-5), Vice Chairman
AsmWilson@njleg.org
856-547-4800

Assemblyman Nelson T. Albano (D-1)
AsmAlbano@njleg.org
609-465-0700

Assemblyman Daniel R. Benson (D-14)
AsmBenson@njleg.org
609-631-0198

Assemblyman Sean Connors (D-33)
AsmConnors@njleg.org

Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-20)
AsmCryan@njleg.org
908-624-0880

Assemblyman Sean T. Kean (R-30)
AsmKean@njleg.org

Assemblyman Gregory P. McGuckin (R-10)
AsmMcGuckin@njleg.org
732-974-0400

Assemblyman Erik Peterson (R-23)
AsmPeterson@njleg.org
908-238-0251

Assemblyman David P. Rible (R-30)
AsmRible@njleg.org
732-974-1719

Assemblyman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-15)
AswWatsonColeman@njleg.org
609-292-0500
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,646
8,818
693
Loveland, CO
#4
The "job-killing" excuse used by everyone who objects to a proposed bill is really getting tiresome. Is Smith and Wesson really going to lay of 50,000 people because they have to make 10 round mags instead of 16?

That being said, these bills are silly.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,847
6,935
763
F.U.B.A.R
#6
All 'assault' weapons laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Fucking treasonous CUNTS.
 

THE FEZ MAN

as a matter of fact i dont have 5$
Aug 23, 2002
42,935
9,799
848
#9
tax dollars wasted
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,794
1,347
693
#10
The "job-killing" excuse used by everyone who objects to a proposed bill is really getting tiresome. Is Smith and Wesson really going to lay of 50,000 people because they have to make 10 round mags instead of 16?

That being said, these bills are silly.
Considering Colt recently announced they are building a new facility in Florida in response to restrictive tax and firearms laws in CT..... Yeah, it's entirely possible companies will pack up their shit and leave.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,646
8,818
693
Loveland, CO
#11
Considering Colt recently announced they are building a new facility in Florida in response to restrictive tax and firearms laws in CT..... Yeah, it's entirely possible companies will pack up their shit and leave.
http://www.redstate.com/laborunionr...e-has-uaw-job-killers-in-connecticut-worried/

Sounds like IF they are leaving CT, it's due to Unions and taxes, not oppressive firearms regulations. Or do you have a different source citing that as the reason.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#12
Considering Colt recently announced they are building a new facility in Florida in response to restrictive tax and firearms laws in CT..... Yeah, it's entirely possible companies will pack up their shit and leave.

I've never understood why companies like Colt, Smith & Wesson, Kahr, etc... stay in the states that they do. I mean yea I know moving is expensive and it sucks, some of those companies have a long history, and its just to fucking hot in the South, but this is how you exercise power in this country and when you don't exercise that power, you lose that power.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,794
1,347
693
#13
http://www.redstate.com/laborunionr...e-has-uaw-job-killers-in-connecticut-worried/

Sounds like IF they are leaving CT, it's due to Unions and taxes, not oppressive firearms regulations. Or do you have a different source citing that as the reason.
Mostly been rumor floating around, but it makes sense. CT has some pretty strict "assault weapon" laws themselves, so why would a company that makes a LOT of money from making them want to stay in a state that restricts them?

As for the OP, given how poorly worded some gun control laws have been, it wouldn't surprise me to see companies like Rock River pack up and leave IL out of concerns that something like a magazine ban would be enforced against them.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#14
http://www.redstate.com/laborunionr...e-has-uaw-job-killers-in-connecticut-worried/

Sounds like IF they are leaving CT, it's due to Unions and taxes, not oppressive firearms regulations. Or do you have a different source citing that as the reason.

Colt won't say they're against any gun laws because they don't want to take a chance of pissing off any of the gun grabbing politicians and potentially lose any of their gov't contracts

I won't buy a Colt because they'll support gun control laws and pay protection money to politicians who are against the Constitutional rights of American citizens.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#15
Mostly been rumor floating around, but it makes sense. CT has some pretty strict "assault weapon" laws themselves, so why would a company that makes a LOT of money from making them want to stay in a state that restricts them?

As for the OP, given how poorly worded some gun control laws have been, it wouldn't surprise me to see companies like Rock River pack up and leave IL out of concerns that something like a magazine ban would be enforced against them.


I can assure any of the gun manufacturers out there that the state of Ohio would be more than happy to work with them here and we have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country.

While not gun related I think the state of IL just had to bribe Sears with about 1/2 a billion dollars to remain in IL and not move to Ohio.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,794
1,347
693
#16
Colt won't say they're against any gun laws because they don't want to take a chance of pissing off any of the gun grabbing politicians and potentially lose any of their gov't contracts

I won't buy a Colt because they'll support gun control laws and pay protection money to politicians who are against the Constitutional rights of American citizens.
Ruger was the same way in the past, but have changed quite a bit since ol' Bill died. Colt has replaced all of their former "sporter" (read: neutered) models with rebranded "law enforcement" rifles, complete with collapsing stocks and bayonet lugs. Seems like even the companies that pissed on our rights in the past have gotten their heads out.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,646
8,818
693
Loveland, CO
#17
I've never understood why companies like Colt, Smith & Wesson, Kahr, etc... stay in the states that they do. I mean yea I know moving is expensive and it sucks, some of those companies have a long history, and its just to fucking hot in the South, but this is how you exercise power in this country and when you don't exercise that power, you lose that power.
I'm guessing there'd be quite the uproar from both Government/Military and Law Enforcement buyers if you all of a sudden decided to send their factories in China. Billions in contracts gone. No lawmaker worth his salt would authorize construction of their weapons in a foreign country.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,929
15,342
303
#18
I'll be the first to go all n-person on the thread.

This is a picture of L. Grace Spencer, the person who is trying to outlaw certain magazines and firearms in New Jersey. She is the representative of District 29 which is the distract that has the lovely little celebration of diversity and mahogany goodness, Newark.



Aw waah waah waah if we ban "high capacity" this and that, the jigs would stop shooting people at the drop of a hat.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,794
1,347
693
#19
I'm guessing there'd be quite the uproar from both Government/Military and Law Enforcement buyers if you all of a sudden decided to send their factories in China. Billions in contracts gone. No lawmaker worth his salt would authorize construction of their weapons in a foreign country.
Federal import restrictions on firearms already mean this can't happen. Hell, even "imported" AKs have to be built on US made receivers and barrels.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#21
I'm guessing there'd be quite the uproar from both Government/Military and Law Enforcement buyers if you all of a sudden decided to send their factories in China. Billions in contracts gone. No lawmaker worth his salt would authorize construction of their weapons in a foreign country.

the gov't buys all kinds of foreign made guns

of course Beretta an Italian company that supplies the military with their primary handgun set up shop in the US to manufacturer those guns
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,794
1,347
693
#22
the gov't buys all kinds of foreign made guns

of course Beretta an Italian company that supplies the military with their primary handgun set up shop in the US to manufacturer those guns
Handguns are a little different story than rifles and carbines, though. I believe the FN plant in Columbia, SC has been making the SCARs that were sold to SOCOM, and H&K has set up new plants in the US to handle rifle production for the 416,
 
Dec 8, 2004
49,445
21,269
693
Maine
#23
Handguns are a little different story than rifles and carbines, though. I believe the FN plant in Columbia, SC has been making the SCARs that were sold to SOCOM, and H&K has set up new plants in the US to handle rifle production for the 416,
Yep the H&K plant is in Portsmouth (well Newington) NH... and of course the Sig Plant in Exeter NH.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,847
6,935
763
F.U.B.A.R
#24
Aw waah waah waah if we ban "high capacity" this and that, the jigs would stop shooting people at the drop of a hat.
If they could make all the firearms disappear from the jigs possession it still wouldn't stop the savages from killing each other. They'd just revert back to sticks and stones.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,794
1,347
693
#25
Yep the H&K plant is in Portsmouth (well Newington) NH... and of course the Sig Plant in Exeter NH.
SIG doesn't have any rifle contracts with the US military that I'm aware of, though. Good reasons for that, too...