For firearms enthusiasts from lovers of Glock, AR-15, XD, 1911s, shotguns, AK-47s, to black powder. For shooters, hunters, LEO'S, military, or casual enthusiasts. KAC is about firearms, and all the good things in life. Welcome!
https://kentuckyarmoryclub.com/
All's what it took was the AG of Ma to sign a piece of paper and make this a law.WLJ wrote:BREAKING: Massachusetts Attorney General Bans New AR-15 Sales As of Today
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/0 ... -15-sales/
Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban Enforcement Guidelines RevealedWLJ wrote:BREAKING: Massachusetts Attorney General Bans New AR-15 Sales As of Today
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/0 ... -15-sales/
I don't know, if you read it carefully pretty much any semi auto is bannedjmeister wrote:Buy Ruger stock, the minis are in the clear again
She did and people let these things pass. It's as if she could have literally written murder on there and it would have went through because it being constitutionally allowed or morally allowed is irrelevant.WLJ wrote:She felt like she could just create a law out of thin air.
RCMP Bans High Capacity Ruger 10/22 magazines
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016 ... magazines/
Recently the RCMP (Royal Canadain Mounted Police) have moved to declare magazines of more than 10 rds for the Ruger 10/22 as a prohibited device. Click here to see the report by Calibre, a Canadian firearm magazine.
For those not familiar with Canadian firearm restrictions typically rifles are limited to only 5rd magazines while handguns can enjoy double the capacity at 10rd magazines. .22LR however has no limit for rifles. The RCMP however sees that people can use these high capacity magazines in the Ruger 10/22 Charger which is a handgun and since handguns are limited to 10 rds and the higher capacity magazines can be used in the Ruger Charger they should be banned.
Here is a recorded phone call with the Canadian Firearms Centre.
California Proposition 63 would prohibit the possession of large capacity magazines and require background checks for ammunition purchases, among other proposed reforms. The California Democratic Party spent $1.1 million on its behalf; Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom chipped in $727,564 from his war chest. Many wealthy individuals also contributed six-figure sums, including Napster founder Sean Parker ($400,000). The NRA spent only $95,000 in opposition to Prop 63, with three state gun groups adding a total of $133,000 against it.
Maine Question 3 would require background checks for all gun sales and transfers (with exceptions for family members, hunting, or emergency self-defense). The funders on the gun violence prevention side include Everytown, which has spent $5.6 million (including money from its Maine affiliate), and ARS, which has spent $454,459. The NRA has dominated spending on the opposing side, with $949,359.
Nevada Question 1 would require all gun sales to go through a licensed gun dealer who would conduct a background check. Everytown has spent $13.7 in support of the proposal; one of its founders, Michael Bloomberg, donated another $3.5 million. Businessmen Sean Parker, Nick Hanauer, and Josh Bekenstein have each spent at least $250,000 in support of the measure. The NRA spent $6.5 million against it.
Washington’s Initiative 1491 authorizes courts to issue extreme risk protection orders to temporarily remove guns from individuals who threaten to harm themselves or others. Spending in support of the initiative has come largely from three individuals: Hanauer ($790,000), Steve Ballmer ($500,000), and Paul Allen ($250,000). Everytown spent $550,0000; ARS spent $250,000. There is of yet no record of NRA spending in opposition.
IN hunting amendment could change everything...or nothingTuesday, Indiana voters will decide if hunting and fishing should be a right protected under its constitution.
Read a while back Fischer wanted to get the ball rolling on doing away with it so that he can enact his own gun laws but haven't heard a peep sinceVividia wrote:I got an email about a pre-filed bill to do away with KY's preemption law which protects against municipalities creating laws contrary to state law - eg gun laws. Anybody else see something like that?
We gotta keep an eye on this!!Kentucky: Anti-Gun Legislation Pre-Filed to Remove State Preemption Laws
BY NRA-ILA STAFF | SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2016 Kentucky: Anti-Gun Legislation Pre-Filed to Remove State Preemption Laws
More
This week, state Senator Reginald Thomas (D-13) pre-filed BR 172, legislation that would allow urban-county governments and consolidated local governments to regulate firearms and ammunition. This anti-gun legislation opens the door to more regulations on law abiding citizens.
If enacted, BR 172 would create a confusing patchwork of ordinances and laws, making compliance very difficult and nearly impossible for law abiding citizens. This can create a situation where gun owners and sportsmen have difficulty even knowing about certain laws and accidentally becoming ensnared, simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another.
When the Kentucky Legislature convenes in January, BR 172 will be assigned to committee, and the committee will decide whether a hearing is proper. Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated as BR 172 is formally introduced and moves through the legislative process.