15 rd mags and Obama

Discussion in 'Hi-Point Carbines' started by djanes, Jul 16, 2012.

  1. I like most of you have been waiting for a very long time for a greater capacity magazine from Hi-Point. On another thread there is mention of a poss 15 rd mag coming in Nov. If you think about that for a minute and you were working on a new product, don't you think you would want to know if you could sell it to the public before you make it? I'm am referring to the UN gun control treaty that Obama is going to sign around July 27th. Him signing it means nothing unless it is passed by 2/3's majority by the US senate. Currently the Dems control the senate and if presented for a vote it could very well pass. Some people think that there is Repubs that will vote for it also. If there is a vote it will be after the election. If it does pass we could lose all of our semi-auto rifles and pistols not just hi-capacity mags. Where I'm going with this is I'll bet the mags are not coming until we throw all the bums out of Washington. Even though many of us want the mags what good would it do to spend the money on R&D and then find out you can't sell them. As for me I'm buying more 10 rd mags so I have extras until things get squared away in Washington.
     
  2. IF they are actually going to have them that soon the R&D is already done, why not crank out as many as you can and sell them before they are possibly banned? The only way waiting would make sense is if they have done no or very little R&D and are waiting to see if they can legally sell them before committing $$$ to the project. Back when the AW ban was looking like a real possibility, everybody was scrambling to get product out and "Grandfathered", not holding off to "wait and see".
     

  3. Bitsman

    Bitsman Member

    Slim's assessment is correct.. if you have them made and ready to go it does not matter if they are banned or not.. Only difference is you can now charge twice what you were going to charge.. Saw a great deal of that when Kaliforistan was about to issue its Hi Cap mag laws.. People would drive to gun shows in Arizona and Nevada and buy every 30 rounder they could get their hands on.. once they were in the state they could charge anything they wanted for them...

    You are right that the DEM's have a majority in the Senate... About 2 weeks ago when the Treaty negotiations started at the UN a group of 58 Senators sent a letter to Mr. Obama stating they would not in fact vote for the Treat when/if it reached the Senate... Considering you need a 66 2/3's .... 67... Yes votes I do not see it passing even if it does reach the floor... In the off chance it does.. Then I am sure it will head to the courts... Since the legality of limiting Civil Rights put forth in our Constitution could become an issue..
     
  4. Faeodan

    Faeodan Its comeing right for us! Member

    Just throwing it out there as well. Let me state I am in no way pro-treaty, I'm firmly against the UN shoving there noses into civil affairs that are protected and one of the basis on which this country was founded. Now, if the treaty is signed and passes the house, it will not give the UN, or ATF the legal rights to go door to door and collect all your semi-auto firearms. One of the stipulations of the US signing this treaty stated just that, it will not supersede our national firearm laws.
     
  5. Ringo

    Ringo Senior Member Member

    But of course, if any UN member attacks America in the future they kinda would be going from door to door to make sure those pesky Americans with their semi-auto rifles weren't going to be problems. Pesky Americans... :D
     
  6. helomech

    helomech Member

    903
    0
    Sweet, little blue helmets are easy to pick up in a scope.
     
  7. Bitsman

    Bitsman Member

    To be clear.. The Treaty has to be voted on by the Senate.. not the House.. Two separate legislative bodies with different powers.. You are right the Treaty itself does not contain language that would permit any Federal Alphabet Agency ..FBI, ATF, CIA, NSA, IRS, FDIC, DOJ, DOD.. ect ect..... It does contain language that would establish a central registry of all privately owned firearms.. Who would be the natural group to administer this LIST.... That would be the AFT or FBI.... And whats the first step in the process of confiscation... 1st thing you have to do is find out how many guns you are dealing with, who has them, and where they are located... Once you have that info it would not take a rocket scientist to figure out a way to go and take those weapons for one reason or another... Even if they were taken illegally.. The Government now has them.. yeah you go to court to get them back.. and say the court rules in your favor... Sorry.. we LOST your weapons.. Here's a few $100 or few $1000 to replace them.. OH.. sorry.. you cant but those now... Sorry again....
     
  8. jimmyzline

    jimmyzline Member

    43
    0
    Now matter how you try to dissect the treaty, if passed it will further limit your gun rights. Whether it be by banning imported guns and ammo or the database of gun ownership, you will feel the pinch. Use your voice, your vote and your wallet if necessary. Let Washington know you don't agree with this treaty in any fashion or wording.
     
  9. coachmike

    coachmike Member

    13
    0
    JIMMYZLINE is correct....................VOTE, and get everyone you know to vote! this is a slippery slope that this current administration will use to justify and "explain; to all the ignorant people the reason for further limiting, or even the elimination of the 2nd ammendment (which is the liberals ultimate goal)
     
  10. chfields

    chfields Member

    141
    0
    Vote as if your freedoms and rights depend on it....Oh wait....they do.....
     
  11. Kri

    Kri Member

    387
    0
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Pretty much.:rolleyes:
     
  12. Who needs a treaty???

    Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill.
    "Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

    Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.

    The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition."
    http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure
     
  13. Ranger-6

    Ranger-6 Member

    2,575
    2
    I am a sports shooter, I mainly shoot for relaxation and the for the fun of it. With that thought, I am fine with the magazines offered by Hi Point, and have extra to avoid repetition reloading. Also, taking a break between reloading and target changing helps to recover from shooting fatigue.
     
  14. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,497
    10,711
    NE Utah
    I rarely need more than 10 rounds either. But I in no way think that it is "reasonable" to limit my right to buy and use any darned capacity magazine I want to.

    Not ONCE have we ever heard of a gun law stopping someone from getting a gun he wanted and doing what he wanted with it.

    :rantoff:The 2A says NOTHING about "reasonable", it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    If you start making exceptions and limits...YOU ARE INFRINGING!

    KNOCK IT OFF!:ranton: