I agree. That was not in this bill that I could see. That said, they are going after these gun manufacturers based on their "marketing" and breaking some state level marketing laws.Long Rant: You are right but - something that we ALL need to be mindful of is the fact that "they" are going to try to hold gun manufacturers liable, (which is ludicrous)!
Yes, there are laws that are SUPPOSED to protect the manufacturers. No, they don't work. (Look at Remington)
They ARE going to go after the manufacturers. (I read that Daniel Defense has already been tagged for liability in this latest hell)
10/22 is covered by the age restriction.The AR Jr was on the news last night. Even if a 10/22 doesn't make it on this bill it'll come in the near future.
They knew that the "assault weapons ban" would have zero impact on crime…so Joe Biden at POTUS Clinton's request worked diligently on the "crime bill" that included "stop and frisk", "100000 more cops" and massive police funding. This was all later determined to be "racist" and yet somehow that never stuck on Joe Biden or Clinton's media resume. That was their plan to get the "assault weapons ban" to stick….massively funding a racist police shakedown.Those so called "Assault Weapons" continued to be sold in a different configuration. "High capacity magazines" were grandfathered in. So they can claim that the Assault Weapons bans decreased crime, but the number of weapons out there remained the same.
I think you misunderstand my point. Even if the 10/22 isn't under the bill as it is today it's up for questioning. It's a semi auto firearm. The AR Jr is being deemed as evil marketing towards kids. The 10/22 is what most adults learned to shoot when we were kids. It's not a far jump to get this new bill to attack all semi auto firearms.10/22 is covered by the age restriction.
In responses to deaths and injuries, vehicle manufacturers were required to add seatbelts and, later, airbags. Training, licensing, and insurance are required. We all still drive, and there are fewer casualties.Long Rant: You are right but - something that we ALL need to be mindful of is the fact that "they" are going to try to hold gun manufacturers liable, (which is ludicrous)!
Yes, there are laws that are SUPPOSED to protect the manufacturers. No, they don't work. (Look at Remington)
They ARE going to go after the manufacturers. (I read that Daniel Defense has already been tagged for liability in this latest hell)
All they have to do is go after the manufacturers, one by one, & then there will be none....no need to outlaw guns! (See what Canada has already done about "pistols")
Look, we all know this is just a gun grab ploy. HOW CAN A MANUFACTURER BE HELD LIABLE FOR WHAT A LOST, SICK, DISTURBED, ANGRY, EVIL PERSON DECIDES TO DO WITH THEIR PRODUCT?
I mean - where does it end? Will they shut down: Car, truck, boat, plane, walking cane, motorcycle, farm equipment (tractors), lawn equipment (chain saws), sports equipment (bats) and tool manufacturers (hammers, saws, screwdrivers) just because someone decided to use their quality product to kill someone with?
It's crazy but if we all just sit back all fed & comfy it may just happen!
JMO - Radman
PS: For those of you who like to argue & nitpick, don't! We ALL already know about liability lawsuits because of poor or faulty design or assembly or the fact that someone's coffee or fries
were too hot.
Good question and one that gets asked a lot. You could shoot a president, and several others around him and get off in time. So I would point at judges not enforcing existing laws.I'd argue that the recent spike in gun violence is due to the jails releasing many of the prisoners due to covid. And due to not enforcing or prosecuting suspects due to this woke mentality. Besides if we aren't going to enforce the laws we have how is creating new laws going to help. My answer is it won't, we just won't have firearms. Or at least the ones we want or currently have.
In the case that I was directly involved with it was the DA. But there have been issues with some judges too.Good question and one that gets asked a lot. You could shoot a president, and several others around him and get off in time. So I would point at judges not enforcing existing laws.