MNGunTalk.com

I know it states in 1 that pertains to semi auto but it's blurring the line between the two. Their getting sick on this stuff.

(b) Semiautomatic military-style assault weapon also includes any:

(1) semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has
one or more of the following:
....
(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel,
allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but
excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

Maybe I'm reading too much into this definition, but couldn't the part highlighted in red basically be interpreted as the forearm of ANY long gun?

(2) semiautomatic pistol, or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed
magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than seven rounds of ammunition;

Do you own a Marlin Model 60? Congratulations, you now own a "military-style assault weapon".

I realize it has never stopped the .GOV from doing it in the past, but people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about should NOT be allowed to write legislation.

ex-LT wrote:

SNIP

Can somebody explain why a barrel shroud makes something more dangerous?

Ghost wrote:

ex-LT wrote:

SNIP

Can somebody explain why a barrel shroud makes something more dangerous?

It's safer to shoot a long gun one-handed?

This gives me an idea:
If someone has access to the author's inner circle.

With great fear and concern, they should encourage that the bill be modified to include those sights that a lot of urban shooters use:


as it appears they are taking their cues from the movie biz.

xd ED wrote:SNIP

Problem solved

ex-LT wrote:Maybe I'm reading too much into this definition, but couldn't the part highlighted in red basically be interpreted as the forearm of ANY long gun?

I think you're right - PARTIALLY Encircles.... so that you can hold the firearm with your non-trigger hand. Even the little piece of wood underneath the double barrels of my old LC Smith would fall into this category.

I have two things to say about the Latz-man:
1 - Go big or go home. The is Senator Latz. He's smart. He's so smart that he can completely lie to our faces and we'll never know it. He's going to show us just how smart he is by completely outlawing all guns in Minnesota with a single click of his BIC pen.
2 - Seriously??? It took him several weeks to get this bill ready? I think he's slipping. Very disappointed he wasn't better prepared. And, this bill falls far short of total confiscation. Shame on him for such a half-hearted attempt.

2in2out wrote: It took him several weeks to get this bill ready? I think he's slipping. Very disappointed he wasn't better prepared.

I'm convinced that these bills are all pre-written and ready to go when the opportunity arises. Change the dates and all set. I'm further convinced that the "authors" of the bills often have no idea of the details contained in them. Anti-gun organizations prepare them and they are given to a "safe" sponsor.

So this would redefine many firearms as "assault weapons" but not ban them? Am I understanding this correctly? Once defined as such, only 21 and older can buy them?

If so, this is a first step. Once they define the gun as an AW, later they will try to ban it.

atomic41 wrote:So this would redefine many firearms as "assault weapons" but not ban them? Am I understanding this correctly? Once defined as such, only 21 and older can buy them?

If so, this is a first step. Once they define the gun as an AW, later they will try to ban it.

Incrementalism at its finest

They may try being a bunch of sneaky idiots, but think all of this crap will be challenged in court and thrown out. Way to much money to lose from businesses shutting down and higher unemployment. Something this country doesn’t want to happen. But these idiots can show they tried and point the finger to who to blame. .I. to Democrats for trying and wasting tax payer money!

Bearcatrp wrote:They may try being a bunch of sneaky idiots, but think all of this crap will be challenged in court and thrown out. Way to much money to lose from businesses shutting down and higher unemployment. Something this country doesn’t want to happen. But these idiots can show they tried and point the finger to who to blame. .I. to Democrats for trying and wasting tax payer money!

No. Look at California, New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, Washington state, etc. They do not care about private business. They do not care about individual freedom. Look at Washington, DC, if they lose in court, they do their best to ignore the decision and do it some other way. The only thing they care about is increasing the power of government.

Now latz has a Republican co sponsor Senator Jensen. I for one never trust the republicans when they gain power .
That's when they roll over and pass stuff they campaign against!
I already sent a email to Senator Jensen . Hope he gets replaced next election by a real gun supporter .
We really need to let the Republicans know that turning on us will cost them in the next election!

I sent Jensen a email telling him he can kiss re-election goodbye for not staying with his word! Told him he is a typical lying politician, and we will make sure everyone knows this come election time!

Bearcatrp wrote:I sent Jensen a email telling him he can kiss re-election goodbye for not staying with his word! Told him he is a typical lying politician, and we will make sure everyone knows this come election time!

I get that but I would think if election time comes around and he is in the race, it is then too late because you will have him and a democrat.

Bearcatrp wrote:I sent Jensen a email telling him he can kiss re-election goodbye for not staying with his word! Told him he is a typical lying politician, and we will make sure everyone knows this come election time!

I had fun with him on the radio the other night - I don't think he had a single supportive phone call.
b