View Full Version : AWB Ban
NousDefionsDoc
09-13-2004, 06:41
Well, I understand that the oppression by Democratically elected government of socialist ass clowns that think guns are the root cause of insurgency and crime has ended in the US. Those horrible wmd known as flash suppressors, folding stocks and hi-cap mags are now legal again?
Don't forget the pistol grip and the imfamous Grenade Launcher.
:rolleyes:
This never should have passed in the first place.
Sacamuelas
09-13-2004, 07:41
FREEDOM :lifter
Don't forget the pistol grip and the imfamous Grenade Launcher.
:rolleyes:
This never should have passed in the first place.
Grenade launcher? Don't you mean bayonet lug?
Now we wait and see how long it takes them to do it again...... Get it while the getting is good!
Kyobanim
09-13-2004, 10:07
Why would they ban the Average White Band? They never used all those terrible things :(
Bravo1-3
09-13-2004, 10:26
Grenade Launchers were illegal?
You could have fooled me. Even in Hawaii (where, in all seriousness, they wanted to LOCK UP GUNS USED IN CRIMES at one point) there were people selling 37mm smoothbore guns at all of the gun shows. They were selling Baton, Smoke, and Bean Bag rounds for them too... and this was DURING the ban.
Now will someone PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN and remember the scurge of bayonete killings in this country before the ban!?!? OK, so it was during the Civil War... BUT WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?
Grenade Launcher as in Rifle Grenade Launcher like on the Yugo SKS rifles that are coming into the Country right now.
There were 3 news crews in the show room when I got here this morning, and every 5 seconds, some yahoo calls; "Hey man that there damn ole Assault Weapon Ban Go away man?"
And it's just getting started I'm afraid.
Good Times
Bravo1-3
09-13-2004, 12:16
Grenade Launcher as in Rifle Grenade Launcher like on the Yugo SKS rifles that are coming into the Country right now.
Ahh, gotcha. As is, a grenade launcher that you can't get any ammo for... yep, lets make that sucker illegal post haste!
The amount of rhetoric about this on the news is unbelievable. People are talking about it now being nothing more than a gun shop visit to buy Machine Guns, Silencers, Street Sweepers etc...
Ignorance knows no bounds.
Quick question: Was the Calico covered under a different law than AWB? I had one many years ago, and while I was in the Marine Corps, the Peoples Republic of New Jersey sent an officer to my house and threatened my dad with arrest because the guns were registered to me, and stored at his house. Since I was not there, they were threatening to arrest him for possession of firearms not registered to him. They took EVERYTHING I owned at the time. I found out about it about 2 weeks later, and was given the run around by the State Police as to where they were and how to get them back. Then I got called in front of the XO, who told me that I needed to "stop bothering the police department." I got a letter about 2 months later telling me that since I had not taken any action to get them returned, the weapons in question were destroyed. Fuckers.
I want another Calico. :D
Ahh, gotcha. As is, a grenade launcher that you can't get any ammo for... yep, lets make that sucker illegal post haste!
The amount of rhetoric about this on the news is unbelievable. People are talking about it now being nothing more than a gun shop visit to buy Machine Guns, Silencers, Street Sweepers etc...
Ignorance knows no bounds.
Quick question: Was the Calico covered under a different law than AWB? I had one many years ago, and while I was in the Marine Corps, the Peoples Republic of New Jersey sent an officer to my house and threatened my dad with arrest because the guns were registered to me, and stored at his house. Since I was not there, they were threatening to arrest him for possession of firearms not registered to him. They took EVERYTHING I owned at the time. I found out about it about 2 weeks later, and was given the run around by the State Police as to where they were and how to get them back. Then I got called in front of the XO, who told me that I needed to "stop bothering the police department." I got a letter about 2 months later telling me that since I had not taken any action to get them returned, the weapons in question were destroyed. Fuckers.
I want another Calico. :D
Might have been a NJ state Law, Similar to NY & CA.
Unfortunately, I think that Calico arms was pretty much forced out of Business by the AWB since all they made were Hi Cap weapons.
Someone May buy the rights and start manufacturing them again though.
Grenade launcher? Don't you mean bayonet lug?
No.
The grenade launcher part is just one of the forgotten characteristics that "identify" an assault weapon that is overlooked. However it still unfortunately characterizes it as "illegal."
See stolen googlefu doc. below:
:lifter
In 1994, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed. This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
A grenade launcher.
Grenade launchers were already illegal and regulated by the ATF as "Destructive Devices". However, most militaries use an item known as a rifle grenade. This grenade attaches to the muzzle of the rifle and is launched by firing a round (or special blank round) into the base of the grenade. Since civilian flash suppressors were identical in diameter to military flash suppressors, they were capable of using this grenade (although possession of such a grenade is illegal and unlikely). For the purposes of this bill, this made these flash suppressors into "grenade launchers".
rubberneck
09-13-2004, 14:02
I went to the range today and about half way through my range session I turn around to find a TV camera in my face. Talk about distracting. Any way after I finish up and head out the reporter from ABC news in NYC asks me if I want to be on TV to which I say no. The guy just stood there and looked confused for a second and then asked why. I told him it was because the news media had been a foe of the second amendment and I didn't believe that they would report the story fairly. I also added that since I was on private property and had not given my consent to being filmed that I would sue them if they used footage of me on the news tonight. Bastards :p
NousDefionsDoc
09-13-2004, 14:06
I went to the range today and about half way through my range session I turn around to find a TV camera in my face. Talk about distracting. Any way after I finish up and head out the reporter from ABC news in NYC asks me if I want to be on TV to which I say no. The guy just stood there and looked confused for a second and then asked why. I told him it was because the news media had been a foe of the second amendment and I didn't believe that they would report the story fairly. I also added that since I was on private property and had not given my consent to being filmed that I would sue them if they used footage of me on the news tonight. Bastards :p
LOL - well done!
The Reaper
09-13-2004, 15:15
No.
The grenade launcher part is just one of the forgotten characteristics that "identify" an assault weapon that is overlooked. However it still unfortunately characterizes it as "illegal."
See stolen googlefu doc. below:
:lifter
In 1994, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed. This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
A grenade launcher.
Grenade launchers were already illegal and regulated by the ATF as "Destructive Devices". However, most militaries use an item known as a rifle grenade. This grenade attaches to the muzzle of the rifle and is launched by firing a round (or special blank round) into the base of the grenade. Since civilian flash suppressors were identical in diameter to military flash suppressors, they were capable of using this grenade (although possession of such a grenade is illegal and unlikely). For the purposes of this bill, this made these flash suppressors into "grenade launchers".
Not exactly.
This is my problem with the reporting of this issue.
The law DID NOT BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!
1. Actual assault weapons are selective fire. The AWB did not affect them, they are regulated by other statutes beginning with the NFA of 1934.
2. The law did not ban the weapons. The AWB banned the new manufacture of 19 weapons or their look-alikes with certain irrelevant cosmetic features. Existing weapons were not affected by the law. For new manufacture, remove the offending features, legal to manufacture. To have really prohibited the weapons desired by design would have outlawed any semi-auto weapon, to include the Remington 11-87 Kerry was waving around the other day, and your Dad's old Browning Auto-5 and his Remington 742 hunting rifle. How does adding a folding stock, a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, or a flash suppressor/grenade launcher make any of these weapons more (or less) lethal?
3. The prohibited manufacture of High-Cap mags did little if anything to prevent crime because the average gunfight uses far less than the 10 rounds permitted. Incidentally, the initial version of the AWB prohibited the manufacture of reproductions of the Henry and other 1860s-70s era lever action rifles, and the tubular magazine fed .22LR auto loaders. Links and belts are also affected, though no one to my knowledge has really figured out how to mark them as post ban manufacture.
4. Credible statistics have shown that few, if any crimes are committed with these weapons (they are not the "weapons of choice" for criminals, or now, terrorists). Stats also show no effect of the AWB on crime. For all of the noise by the Police Organizations, I have yet to hear of a LEO being killed with a banned weapon that could not have been done with another non-AWB weapon or for that matter, a motor vehicle.
5. This was the tip of the iceberg for the gun-banners. Make no mistake, their eventual goal is the banning of ALL privately owned weapons, they just have to eat this elephant one bite at the time.
6. The pols know from the 1994, 1996, 2000, and 2002 elections that many gun owners are single-issue voters, and gun control is another third rail of politics. Most from outside NE and the major cities will only consider it as a rider to other legislation, as they tried to do with the Gun Manufacturer's Protection Bill earlier this year. See, they can vote for gun owners and against them at the same time. The 1986 Firearms Owner's Protection Act did that to automatic weapons.
I have more to say, but think I am probably preaching to the choir here.
Rant off.
TR
Also:
In several of the local News Outlet's stories about the AWB have included "12 Gauge Revolving Cylinder shotguns" I.E. Streetsweeper, Striker, etc. To the best of my knowledge, these weapons are still classified as Destructive devices requiring the same Payment of tax and completion of paperwork as a Machinegun or Silencer.
From the ATF Website:
Q. Does the expiration of the SAW ban affect firearms under the National Firearms Act?
A: All provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) relating to registration and transfer of
machineguns, short barreled rifles, weapons made from rifles, short barreled shotguns, weapons
made from shotguns, any other weapons as defined in 26 USC section 5845(e), silencers, and
destructive devices still apply. However, it is now lawful to possess NFA firearms that are also
semiautomatic assault weapons, as long as all provisions of the NFA are satisfied.
USAS-12 and Striker12/Streetsweeper shotguns are still classified as destructive devices under
ATF Rulings 94-1 and 94-2 and must be possessed and transferred in accordance with the NFA.
Rubberneck, you are Da Man!
I haven't been asked too much about AWB. When I do get questions they are typically of the "you won't feel safe anymore on the street will you?" type of BS. My reply is usually "The only people that scare me are the ones asking that stupid question!" :mad:
By the way, I am a member of the FOP and have been for 20 years. I and ALLOT of other LEO's who are members out there NEVER supported the AWB in the first place! Don't let the media mislead you into believing otherwise. I am not for a society where we are the only ones that are allowed to play, hmmm, sorry, possess them!
rubberneck
09-13-2004, 18:07
When I do get questions they are typically of the "you won't feel safe anymore on the street will you?" type of BS.
Tell them that according to DOJ statistics 1 in every 44 Americans over the age of 12 were the victim of violent crime last year. Over 5.4 million americans couldn't count on LEO to save them from being victimized despite the great efforts of Law Enforcement. Quite frankly I would tell them that I feel uncomfortable with those who would are making every effort to ensure that me and my family are left defenseless in the face of that threat.
Not exactly.
This is my problem with the reporting of this issue.
The law DID NOT BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!
TR
I believe we are in definite agreement here, did not mean to imply assault weapons were banned; just that the manufacurer's were prohibited from manufacturing them with more than 2 items from the list.
No need to defend your "rant" we always love hearing your side of the issues.
:D
The Reaper
09-13-2004, 19:08
I believe we are in definite agreement here, did not mean to imply assault weapons were banned; just that the manufacurer's were prohibited from manufacturing them with more than 2 items from the list.
No need to defend your "rant" we always love hearing your side of the issues.
:D
I understood your post.
The article you quoted stated, "This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics..."
That is also what the media is saying.
You repeat a lie often enough, to most people, it becomes the truth.
Just trying to keep the record straight here.
TR
You repeat a lie often enough, to most people, it becomes the truth.
Just trying to keep the record straight here.
TR
Just to illustrate TR's commentary, here's Kerry using that "lie repeated into truth" syndrome, for effect.
"For the first time in 10 years, when a killer walks into a gun
shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they
want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're
going to hear one word: 'Sure,"' he continued. "Today, George Bush chose
to make the job of terrorists easier and make the job of America's police
officers harder, and that's just plain wrong."
I wonder if AQ complies with all NFA rules.....
The Reaper
09-13-2004, 19:31
I wonder if Kerry complied with the laws for all of the guns he has been gifted.
Out of state transfers can be very tricky!
Thoughts, Counsels?
TR
rubberneck
09-13-2004, 20:22
I wonder if Kerry complied with the laws for all of the guns he has been gifted.
Out of state transfers can be very tricky!
Thoughts, Counsels?
TR
Ask and ye shall receive.
Don't Arrest Kerry in Shotgun Incident, Gun-Law Expert Says
A Gun-law expert Alan Korwin is calling for calm in the national uproar over John Kerry's possible serious gun violations during a recent photo op in Racine, W.V.
The national clamor over the Democratic presidential candidate, who took possession of a Browning semiautomatic shotgun outside his home state, reflects a problem with the laws and should not be used to arrest and prosecute the man, Korwin says.
A gun crossing state lines is heavily regulated thanks to John Kerry and his ilk.
"There are so many charges Kerry might face," according to Korwin, who has written seven books on gun laws, including the unabridged plain-English federal guide "Gun Laws of America."
1. Taking ownership of the shotgun gift, if he doesn't already have a valid Massachusetts Firearm Identification Card, could subject him to a two-and-a-half-year prison term in his home state. Since he has claimed publicly he owns firearms, chances are he has this critical piece of paper, Korwin says.
2. Bringing the firearm back to Massachusetts, if he received it from a private party, would be a federal felony under the 1968 Gun Control Act (five years in prison, $5,000 fine, 18 USC §922).
3. The only exemption that would allow him to bring it into his home state requires that he obtained it in a face-to-face transaction with a federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL). A private gift would not qualify.
4. If Kerry did get it from an FFL, he would have had to personally fill out and sign a 4473 form, required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), before the gift was given, under penalty of federal felony.
5. If Kerry did not personally undergo a "NICS" instant background check before the transfer from an FFL, he would have put the person conducting the transfer in some legal jeopardy, though the law contains a loophole that probably would save Kerry from additional harm (the dealer, not the recipient, suffers from failure to do the NICS check).
While gun lobbyists are inflamed that Kerry introduced a law that would outlaw this particular type of sporting shotgun and gun gifts in general, it is a good thing the law has not passed yet, because then it might be too serious a problem to simply ignore.
Korwin says that calls to indict Kerry are premature and "most certainly overkill. John Kerry should receive the same lenient treatment any other citizen deserves when innocently violating these complex and non-intuitive rules." At least give him a chance to explain, Korwin pleads.
Unfortunately, federal authorities from BATFE have been known in the past to be inflexible in their enforcement of even minor technical violations (note that none of these felony violations involve a victim or any sort of harm). With widely circulated evidence, in the form of photographs of Kerry in obvious possession of the firearm, he could find himself subject to the long arm of the law.
More importantly, Korwin says, "Some of these laws are just foolish, putting honest citizens at enormous and unjustified risk, and are so complicated that even a presidential candidate and his staff cannot figure them out."
Roguish Lawyer
09-13-2004, 21:14
I wonder if Kerry complied with the laws for all of the guns he has been gifted.
Out of state transfers can be very tricky!
Thoughts, Counsels?
TR
I like it! But good luck finding a willing prosecutor. :mad:
I like it! But good luck finding a willing prosecutor. :mad:
Marsha Clark :munchin
I understood your post.
The article you quoted stated, "This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics..."
That is also what the media is saying.
You repeat a lie often enough, to most people, it becomes the truth.
Just trying to keep the record straight here.
TR
I figured you understood :D
You have a very good point stating that if you repeat something enough times, it becomes the truth to most people.
Our Politicians are experts in this realm, whether they use the media, radio or newsprint to do their dirty work, they have a knack for "nagging" the public until their point/topic becomes second nature and "true."
Basenshukai
09-14-2004, 12:38
Now that I bought an Omega watch, I have to find a way to convince Household 6 that we also need a fully automatic M4 to add to the other guns. I'm open for suggestions. :D
Once again, the recently expired "Manufacture Ban" Only applied to "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons" The title itself is an oxymoron as TR mentioned. A Transferrable full auto M4 from a Reputable Manufacture (Colt Registered receiver) WILL cost $15,000+ as well as the $200 tax.