AR Sponsor
Posted: 12/31/2003 4:25:36 AM EDT
|
I am new to AR15.com and I have my first stripped RRA lower on the way. I have the sickness now... I would like to take the time to say that this is an excellent resource and a great community to be a part of so thanks for making newbies feel welcome to ask any questions. From what I have read the AWB will sunset on Sept. 14th 2004. I assume that everyone is gonna rush out and get all the fun stuff that would then be legal like: -Telescoping Stocks -Bayo Lugs -Threaded Barrels -Flash Suppressors I understand that "if" the current AWB comes back again permanently after the sunset, to be legal we will have to "prove" that our SAW was assembled before the ban took effect again. How can I do this when piecing together a new AR? I want to be prepared to sell it down the road if I have to and to be able to prove it is legal. My other question is can I start gathering parts now and simply not put them all together until September 14? Thanks! |
|
Right now it is really easy to distinguish between pre and post ban. It is just a matter of looking up the records of factory completed rifle serial numbers. In other words, it is almost black and white. If the ban were to be reinstated as permitted law before the end date, then there are only going to be pre and post ban. If the ban goes past the end date without being made permitted, and a new law is passed later, many different things could happen... 1) it could be retroactive, meaning that it all guns, owners, and MFG have to comply with the law regardless of when there gun was made. This would be the hardest to pass into law. 2) It could say you have to dance and sing at American Idol before buying a gun. 3) please insert ridiculous idea here. 4) please insert ridiculous idea here. 5) please insert ridiculous idea here. It is hard to say how you will be able to have a pre ban style AR. Since the AWB has not been made into permitted law yet, and since we have no way of knowing what type of ridiculous idea they may come up with in the meantime. |
|
I really don't want to pay the extra money for one that's factory completed unless that's my only option to have some proof. I would rather build it myself. All of this is assuming the ban WILL sunset and that sometime after that there WILL be another ban, either the same one with no sunset or some new ban which will be harder to pass. |
|
Quoted: I really don't want to pay the extra money for one that's factory completed unless that's my only option to have some proof. I would rather build it myself. All of this is assuming the ban WILL sunset and that sometime after that there WILL be another ban, either the same one with no sunset or some new ban which will be harder to pass. Welcome to the Board and good luck on your project. [coffee] |
|
Guys, all the nit picking, BATFE paranoia, & legal hair splitting will fall by the wayside if we do our part to prevent the AW ban from being re-authorized (or made MUCH worse) next September!!! To this end, I direct everyone to... [url=www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=203989]The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread[/url] Think about it... we can spend lots of time & energy worrying about this nonsense on the Internet, OR we can refocus our efforts, and actually do something to help end the AW ban, thus making this entire topic irrelevant! The choice is yours... BTW, welcome to the addiction Perfectforce! |
|
My current plan is the moment the dumb AWB goes away I'm going to assemble as many 'preban' configurations as I have lowers for... flash hiders, bayo lugs, telestocks. Photograph each complete assembly clearly showing features and serial number, print the pics and take them to the notary. Should there be a replacement AWB down the road the hope is to grandfather these in. If nothing replaces the current AWB I simply wasted some time, but if they jam us up with another foolish law it just might work out. Ofcourse if the powers that be remove the sunset provision or pass another AWB to take effect the moment the current one dies my plan isn't going to work out... Hopefully the AWB dies the death it deserves and nothing takes its place. Keep the pressure on the lawmakers... |
|
I wouldnt give up my Evil Black Rifles even if it was suddenly illegal to own any type. SORRY, Im a hard working honest guy, and I paid cold hard cash for them, and no low life egg sucking pen pushing civil servent is going to take them away unless he removes them from my cold dead hands. Have a nice day..[:)] |
|
Bloke, all the "cold dead hands" bravado aside, let me ask you a question... What have you already done & what [i]will[/i] you be doing over the next 9 months to ensure that when the current ban expires, it stays dead? Thankfully, we are still at the point where the pen is mightier than the sword. How bout you sacrifice some time, $$$, and ink NOW, so you don't [i]have to[/i] sacrifice blood & tears in the future? |
| Thanks for the info guys. And to answer markm's "How many times does this have to be discussed?" Well I would be willing to start a thread everyday if it meant that one more new person would read it and write some letters. Personally I am going to use some of the letters I found and start mailing. I hope this answer can satisfy you markm, as we are all not as "knowledgeable" as you. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for the info guys. And to answer markm's "How many times does this have to be discussed?" Well I would be willing to start a thread everyday if it meant that one more new person would read it and write some letters. Personally I am going to use some of the letters I found and start mailing. I hope this answer can satisfy you markm, as we are all not as "knowledgeable" as you. Well said. |
|
My theory is,If the ban sunsets for only one day all lower recievers made before any new law is enacted will be preban,regardless of when the upper reciever was assembled with pre ban componants.Just like 94, it is the only way the law could be enforceable.Just my two cents. Mike |
|
IBTL! Now that that's out of the way... Quoted: ...If the ban goes past the end date without being made permitted, and a new law is passed later, many different things could happen... 1) it could be retroactive, meaning that it all guns, owners, and MFG have to comply with the law regardless of when there gun was made. This would be the hardest to pass into law. Ex-post facto laws are unconstitutional, & won't make it past the legislature. Now, I'm sure an EPF law probably does exist somewhere in this once-free land, but not likely to happen w/ a high-profile issue like this. No one seriously defends EPF laws, & more than a few people wouldn't stand for it (incl. the SC) if one was passed. The McCarthy bill bans firearm parts mfg'ing instead going for a "ban all guns now" approach (the epitome of gun control propogandists), because such would be too blatantly unconstitutional, even for an east-coast uber-liberal-iberal. |
|
Quoted: ...& more than a few people wouldn't stand for it (incl. the SC) if one was passed. The McCarthy bill bans firearm parts mfg'ing instead going for a "ban all guns now" approach (the epitome of gun control propogandists), because such would be too blatantly unconstitutional, even for an east-coast uber-liberal-iberal. As long as the pro gun groups are not able to advertise through the TV networks by issuing opinions that contradict the PC view of the constitution, Laws will pass that are a blatant disregard for the constitution. If you don't think so, then you better wake up. It is coming, it will pass. Take a look at Ca. state. They did it. I don't see a massive rebellion raising up to stop them. Enjoy your peace of mind while you can. |
|
Quoted: As long as the pro gun groups are not able to advertise through the TV networks by issuing opinions that contradict the PC view of the constitution, Laws will pass that are a blatant disregard for the constitution...It is coming, it will pass. Take a look at Ca. state. They did it. I don't see a massive rebellion raising up to stop them... If this is so, then why are there "pre-" & "post" ban designations under the current law? Getting an EPF law past legislative, executive, & judicial scrutiny would be highly unlikely - even when the issue is about guns. CA was able to do what it did because the state courts carry an obvious bias, & more importantly, because the federal appeals courts don't even agree on the intepretation of the 2nd, while the SC keeps its head in the sand. Hence, the matter has not been settled. There is no debate about the legal interpretation of the Constitution w/ regards to ex-post facto legislation, which is precisely why an outright ban would be harder to accomplish, & it won't fly unless the SC actually rules that the 2nd applies strictly to state-run militias. Sylviera v. Lockyer tosses down the gauntlet on this, but I'm not holding my breath for the SC to take it on. ...If you don't think so, then you better wake up...Enjoy your peace of mind while you can. Only if you can manage to pull your head out of your ass - or is that expecting too much? |
|
Your intitled to your opinion as am I, BUT... [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid96/p04741ec75bc367b49fc806cebcd139d5/fa1f872e.jpg[/img] [img]http://users.vnet.net/cpd/beartard.jpg[/img] [img]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rowland.banks/Tim/funny/funny.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.se7en-x.com/argue/argue.jpg[/img] |
|
Quoted: Your intiled to your opinion as am I... No opinion, just fact, & if you can't handle a response to your directed remarks, then maybe you should refrain from making them at all. Just to be fair, so you won't follow-up w/ another ignorant rant: FACT: The US Constitution prohibits EPF laws in Art 1 § 9 and Art. 1 § 10 FACT: Legal precedent against EPF laws is established in Collins v. Youngblood (1990) & California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales (1995). FACT: Your head is (still) up your ass. HINT: "entiled" is "entitled" |
|
[img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid96/p1a5b1ec3ec9365d9275af00d39e78dfe/fa1f6e67.jpg[/img] It is still your opinion that they will NOT pass laws that are unconstitutional. The NFA of 34 is unconstitutional. The SC has made it very clear that the decision made after Miller vs The USA is the final word on GC. The only reason they have not done anything else yet, is because they have not got all the pieces together. It is my opinion that it will happen at some point in time. |
|
Quoted: [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid96/p1a5b1ec3ec9365d9275af00d39e78dfe/fa1f6e67.jpg[/img] Lemme see...I'll buy 2 O's, 2 U's, & an E. Does that cover it? It is still your opinion that they will NOT pass laws that are unconstitutional. The NFA of 34 is unconstitutional. The SC has made it very clear that the decision made after Miller vs The USA is the final word on GC. The only reason they have not done anything else yet, is because they have not got all the pieces together. It is my opinion that it will happen at some point in time. If you'll recall, I clearly stated: ...Now, I'm sure an EPF law probably does exist somewhere in this once-free land, but [b]not likely[/b] to happen w/ a high-profile issue like this... (emphasis added) There is what is desired & then there is what can be achieved. I have no delusions about what some would like to do to the 2nd Amend. But there are also certain realities that will have to be addressed (or else ignored) for an outright ban to happen. If the 2nd is ever ruled to be a "collective" right, then the problem of EPF becomes irrelevent since, according to such a ruling, no individual should have ever had the right to own a gun in the 1st place. OTOH, in the current climate, it's not quite that easy to make it happen. You think the Kalifornya legislature didn't want to ban everything outright? They simply knew it couldn't happen, so they opted for the most restrictive legislation they could hope to both [u]pass[/u] & [u]enforce[/u]. FWIW, Sylviera v. Lockyer directly challenges the court to re-examine the Miller decision. Remember the election that followed the '94 ban? So do a few politicians. That's the kind of reality check that keeps "us" from being steam-rolled. There are still a [i]few[/i] of "us" left to make them think a little before acting. Not to mention, it helps to have the NRA, GOA, etc. in the wings. |
|
The supreme court has just upheld the McCain / Feingold "campain finanace reform" bill. This is a massive infringement of the FIRST ammenment , in my opinion (as well as the four dissenting judges - read their opinions). I think you would have to be in denial to believe the SC cannot uphold laws that are blatently unconstitutional. Im still amazed at the lack of public notice / reaction to this action. just my 2 cents, dave |
| FL-AR15, thank you, thank you, thank you. I haven't laughed that hard in a long long time. During my seizure, I looked through bleary eyes to see my golden retriever trying to dial 911; otherwise, all is well now. Unless I look at that dude again, buy a few vowels and start all over again. |
|
Ex-post facto laws exist and are/will in the future be upheld by the Federal courts. Take the domestic violence act for example. If convicted of an act of domestic violence you lose your right to own any firearm or ammunition. It is a misdemeanor violation and is retroactive back as far as documented violations exist on the particular person in question. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks, Michael Carter |
|
Can someone please answer this question without looking at me like I am an idiot? -Will this AWB sunset mean that California residents can own assault weapons? Or are we still screwed either way? Im just curious if I should give a penguins ass about this and start writing letters....or just sit back and realize nothing will change for us here. Thanks :) |
|
Quoted: Can someone please answer this question without looking at me like I am an idiot? -Will this AWB sunset mean that California residents can own assault weapons? Or are we still screwed either way? Im just curious if I should give a penguins ass about this and start writing letters....or just sit back and realize nothing will change for us here. Thanks :) Yes and No Even if the Federal ban isn't renewed, you will still be screwed because CA has its own set of laws covering these issues. Should you just sit back and not give damn? Well, I guess since you asked that kind of question. That means you probably contributed to the CA laws being passed; by sitting on your ass when those laws were being worked on. It's this kind of attitude among gun owners that is going to doom us all. |
|
Actually I am 20 years old and got into the sport about a month ago. Ive already purchased a California legal Fab 10 AR-15. When the AWB took effect, I was clueless to what was going on. I guess I worded it wrong when I said "sit back and do nothing." Have a nice day. |
|
Quoted: Actually I am 20 years old and got into the sport about a month ago. Ive already purchased a California legal Fab 10 AR-15. When the AWB took effect, I was clueless to what was going on. I guess I worded it wrong when I said "sit back and do nothing." Have a nice day. If I somehow mis-read your post then my apologies. I get a little cranky when dealing with gunowners that don't bother unless it affects them. Maybe you'll get lucky and the CA shit will go away one day too. |
AR Sponsor