AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/25/2003 1:12:54 AM EDT
|
Sorry if my question seems kind of stupid. If the AW ban really expires next year(hopefully) will the price of prebans drop dramatically? |
|
i don't know that it means they really want another ban. i think it just means that they're concerned about losing money. Look at it this way; no one is yet 100% on if we'll again be able to buy "preban" type weapons after 9/2004. If you were a dealer would you want to risk paying $1200 for a "preban" weapon and plan to sell it for $1500 only to have the ban expire and be lucky if you can get $900 for it? |
|
As much as I would love it to be gone forever, I think it is a "Pipe Dream". Bush supports the ban, 2004 election year is going to be a big one. They will "compromise" again for the good of the majority of gun owners like they did last time, and make soccer moms & dads more comfortable in voting for them. That's just my opinion - I hope I'm wrong. ~ s0ulzer0 |
| The way I understand the law as it is written, there is no provision for the current AW ban to be reinstated in its current form. It WILL sunset because that is the way it is written. It doesnt say it "may" sunset in Sept. '04, it says it "will" sunset in Sept. '04. SO, you better start worrying about what is going to replace it, and REST ASSURED, there WILL be another ban of some type, and it will most assuredly be more restrictive than the current ban. |
|
Quoted: The way I understand the law as it is written, there is no provision for the current AW ban to be reinstated in its current form. It WILL sunset because that is the way it is written. It doesnt say it "may" sunset in Sept. '04, it says it "will" sunset in Sept. '04. SO, you better start worrying about what is going to replace it, and REST ASSURED, there WILL be another ban of some type, and it will most assuredly be more restrictive than the current ban. Yep. |
|
Quoted: I'm planning on having a few collapsable stocks, an upper, maybe a barrel threading tool set, etc. around so I can make a few instant pre-ban style rifles as soon as there's a complete sunset or, maybe, just a window before a new "law" takes effect. Cyrus cgj is right on the money. Of course, the new bill will most likely be written so it takes effect as soon as the '94 ban expires, but... What if the old ban expires a 12-midnight and the new one takes effect at 12:01. You have 60 seconds to make the changes. There's a law term that goes something like, "Ex Post Facto", or "Laws after the fact". You cannot be charged for an act by a law written after the act has been commited. The old law will no longer exist and the new one is not in effect yet. I know I could change out an AR barrel in 60-seconds while my wife is switching over the stock. I would make sure I video taped the act also. What if there's a conflict going on in the world at that time(example-North Korea)? Or a government shutdown of Congress for whatever reasons(Anthrax, budget, etc)? We might have a much larger window than 60 seconds to work with until a new law is drawn up. It would be much better to have the parts on hand than to be backordered due to the thousands of other AR owners trying to make the lawful changes. This is just "Shithouse Lawyer" talk, of course, but I have taken Constitutional Law courses that were required for my Law Enforcement degree here in MN. From all the information I've read, any gap in the time between the laws is opportunity. It's best to start preparring for this gap as soon as possible. Don't be cought wiping your ass in the middle of the woods when the pot of gold appears. It might only be there for a few seconds and you could miss your chance.:) |
| If the ban expires even for only 5 seconds, every single AR out there would then be Pre Ban. You wouldnt need to hurry up and change things within a time limit. All we need is a few seconds of "no ban" status and all our current post bans will become pre bans. So i am currently looking to buy new Ar's as complete rifles but then selling the uppers to other people. Just to cover my butt for the law that says "it had to leave the factory as a rifle." This is my understanding of how things work. I may be wrong, but oh well. |
|
Quoted: SO, you better start worrying about what is going to replace it, and REST ASSURED, there WILL be another ban of some type, and it will most assuredly be more restrictive than the current ban. I never thought about this, but I believe that you are correct. This makes me very pessimistic about the congressional elections next year. Senerio 1 The ban sunsets and there is no replacement. Pros We get rid of a bad law. The NRA and similar groups are firmly behind the Republicans. Cons The Democrats use it to their advantage. President Bush states he wants the ban which causes another riff in the Republican party. Republicans lose the Senate due to a couple a close races where the Democrats scare voters over guns. Senerio 2 A new ban is passed that defines an assult weapon as any semi-automatic gun with a detachable magazine and a single characteristic (pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc.) Pros NONE! Cons Gun owners get angry at Republican party and stays home in Nov. Democrats take Senate and House and maybe the White House. We lose more gun rights the next year. Scary isn't it? Philip PS This is my first post in two years. I had to reregister my old name. PK |
| Ok, I don't really know what to do now. I was planing on geting a post-ban rifle and wait for it to become a pre-ban next year but the more I read on the AWB I'm not sure if thats so good of a idea if I want a pre-ban gun. Lets say I do get a post-ban AR-15 now and wait untill (assuming)the window before the new legislating passes assuming there will be a window, and make all of the changes needed to make the gun a pre-ban. Even if I video tape the modification or have whatever means of documentation what would stop the law from saying that it was not legaly a pre-ban gun before the new law took effect? I don't know, mabe I don't know what I am talking about but I think it is a bit risky, isn't the penalty for posesing a pre-ban gun that was made after the ban took effect a 10 year $10,000 fine? I think I would rather pay the extra $500 bucks or so now and have a 100% no questions asked legal pre-ban because I don't know about you, but I don't trust the legal system at all. |
|
Gentlemen, Unfortunately, I'm a little pessimistic on the possibility of the ban sunsetting in any favorable manner. I'm finishing up my last year of law school and as an avid 2nd amendment proponent, I've done my share of legal research on this topic. So here is my two cents on this matter. If the ban sunsets, it will almost assuredly be followed up by another one. As stated in previous posts, this will occur close to election time, and with school shootings and snipers creating unfair public opinions in the media the new ban will more than likely tighten. As for windows of opportunity, we must keep in mind the way the law is currently interpreted and apply those cannons to the impending new ban. It is commonly mistaken that the gov't has the burden of proof on post ban or pre ban issues based on the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. This is of course not the case. In essence, the gov't classified ALL assault weapons as illegal whether pre or post ban. If a "pre ban" owner can prove assembly prior to the ban, then he may claim exemption to the law. Gun control advocates know of this exemption and of the potential for windows to exist that would allow the last 10 years of their ban to be for naught. If they provide a grandfather exemption to the ban at all, they can simply choose an earlier cut off date for the exemption (maybe Sept. 1994). Additionally, we should recognize that there is no constitutional guarantee that laws will not apply retroactively (many laws have). One last bit of information not quite on topic but pertinent, lowers that have no documentation to prove assembly are post ban. Although there is no case that I can find, I've discussed it with several experts in this field of law and if a lower cannot be proven one way or the other then it is post ban regardless of manufacture date. The burden of proof is on the owner, not the gov't. The lower is illegal until the owner can prove it exempted. This follows basic legal burden of proof scenarios. My advice, spend a little extral money for a pre ban now while the ban is still up in the air. Better to be safe now then kicking yourself in a year. Sorry for my long rant on the soapbox, but as a Texan and American, this issue really hits me. -TxAggie |
|
Damn, this is one of the most pessimistic ban-related threads I've ever seen! [:)] Don't just sit around moping about it... DO SOMETHING. Write your Representative and Senators. Write the Chairman of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Write the Majority Leaders, and the Majority Whips. Write the Chairmen of the GOP Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees. Yes, your letter by itself will not make a difference. But your letter with thousands of others WILL make these people think twice before caving on this issue. Keep in mind, a ban renewal has to pass the Senate AND the House before it even reaches Bush's desk. Otherwise, it goes away. Our best hope is in the House. Keep in mind, this is the same body that just overwhelmingly passed the only bill that is perhaps almost as "repulsive" to the anti-gun crowd as the idea of letting the ban sunset... preventing innocent people who have been victimized by the infinitely evil gun industry from suing these devilish corporations. The House Judiciary Committee is loaded up with pro-gun Reps... a solid 21-15 majority to be exact. Chairman Sensenbrenner is firmly on our side. The renewal bill would have to survive this committee before even being considered for a full vote on the House floor. And, let's keep in mind that the House handily passed a REPEAL of the ban in 1996 (didn't make it to the Senate floor for a vote, and would have been vetoed anyway by Klinton). We're certainly not home free, but it's looking a lot better than many of you think! --Mike |
|
Quoted: Damn, this is one of the most pessimistic ban-related threads I've ever seen! [:)] Don't just sit around moping about it... DO SOMETHING. Write your Representative and Senators. Write the Chairman of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Write the Majority Leaders, and the Majority Whips. Write the Chairmen of the GOP Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees. Yes, your letter by itself will not make a difference. But your letter with thousands of others WILL make these people think twice before caving on this issue. Keep in mind, a ban renewal has to pass the Senate AND the House before it even reaches Bush's desk. Otherwise, it goes away. Our best hope is in the House. Keep in mind, this is the same body that just overwhelmingly passed the only bill that is perhaps almost as "repulsive" to the anti-gun crowd as the idea of letting the ban sunset... preventing innocent people who have been victimized by the infinitely evil gun industry from suing these devilish corporations. The House Judiciary Committee is loaded up with pro-gun Reps... a solid 21-15 majority to be exact. Chairman Sensenbrenner is firmly on our side. The renewal bill would have to survive this committee before even being considered for a full vote on the House floor. And, let's keep in mind that the House handily passed a REPEAL of the ban in 1996 (didn't make it to the Senate floor for a vote, and would have been vetoed anyway by Klinton). We're certainly not home free, but it's looking a lot better than many of you think! --Mike Thanks for the ray of sunshine.[wave] |
|
I think some of you guys have forgotten how a new law has to be made. The old ban will sunset so some sort of new law has to be written. Even if the anti's could get the house to pass a new law, which I doubt will happen with the current setup. All you need is one pro-gun Senator to filibuster the proposed new law and it will take 60 Senators to override that filibuster, which will be hard to do. Is it impossible for a new law to be passed? No its not, that is why you all need to do your part to help this law stay gone for good in 2004. |
|
VA-gunnut is right. You guys are a little overly pessemistic. With the house as it is, the law should not pass. Heck, even the Missouri House just passed a CCW bill by 75%. That means about 50% of the democrats voted for it. Many were quoted as changing sides becaause of 9-11, etc. Put it this way, I've got TWO stripped post-ban lowers and I'm holding off on buying the barrels and stocks because these WILL be EVIL M4's.[:D] Now, that does not mean I am sitting back and not doing anything. Write polite, but firm letters to your congressmen. |
|
Quoted: I think some of you guys have forgotten how a new law has to be made. The old ban will sunset so some sort of new law has to be written. Even if the anti's could get the house to pass a new law, which I doubt will happen with the current setup. All you need is one pro-gun Senator to filibuster the proposed new law and it will take 60 Senators to override that filibuster, which will be hard to do. Is it impossible for a new law to be passed? No its not, that is why you all need to do your part to help this law stay gone for good in 2004. It is highly possible that the anti's in congress will attempt to attach a rider to another very necessary bill which will change only the date of expiration of the '94 AW ban. Hell, half of congress may not even be aware that it is in the bill. This is going to require quite a bit of diligence on our part. |
|
Quoted: It is highly possible that the anti's in congress will attempt to attach a rider to another very necessary bill which will change only the date of expiration of the '94 AW ban. Hell, half of congress may not even be aware that it is in the bill. Actually I think the real danger is an attachment to an UNNECESSARY bill. The more prominent the bill, the less likely the authors are to take a chance of it getting killed in committee by a few (or one) pro-gunners. |
|
One of the plusses our side has to work with might be the 'ineffectiveness' of the AW ban. Although I haven't been around AR15.com for over a year, and have not been kept up-to-date about any national convictions, I cannot think of anyone that has been charged for a crime under the current ban. I also performed a thurough internet search with 0 results. One argument could be that the ban did nothing but increase the spending required to maintain the BATF's operating status, while providing little in return, since few headlines begin with the words, "Suspect convicted for violations under 1994 Assault Weapons Ban". Due to the attacks our country has encountered, and those foreseen in the future, there seems to be a greater trend towards arming citizens. Here in Minnesota, probably one of the top-10 liberal states in the country, we are awaiting a Senate vote this week that will make us "Shall Issue". This is the final hurdle for us once again, yet projections say it will be a 38-29 victory for us. This comes after the House's passage last week, with a Governer waiting to sign it into law. I'm optimistic there will not be a continuation after the current ban expires, but I'll still be prepared if there's only a short window. Remember what was going on in 2000 during the time period a new AW would likely be drawn up in 2004. The main topics were "Locked Box" and oil. Most of the year was spent campaining for the election. Social Security was the big topic again. Gas prices were second. The Clinton administration went as far as releasing oil from our national reserve to gain points. Debates on gun issues were almost non-existant. Because of the ever aging 'Baby Boomers', Social Security will once again be the main topic of the campaign. Gun bans will take a back seat to this and whatever other topic comes along during that time period. And because of America's gaining involvement around the world, one can bet there will be something bigger going on. Another AW Ban might be seen as a minute subject, with most of the Government's attention directed towards higher vote-winning topics. The Republican administration will spend 2004 preparing social security packages. The Demicrats, knowing they also need these votes the most, will set gun bans to the side and counter the SS issues. |
| Neal Knox (in Shotgun News) made a good point: there has already been talk of a "compromise" AW ban, i.e maybe allowing magazines to hold more than 10 rounds and that's it. When we contact our elected representatives about the AW ban, we need to definitely quash even the slightest idea of compromise. They won't be able to pass a renewal the way Congress is stacked (if we do our part). Why give them what they can't take? |
|
Sorry guys...I learned the damn hard way. Years ago I had several nice weapons, HK 93, HK 91, FN FAL Para, FNC, etc. I made trades with these rifles for some damn good profit hoping that the ban was a bunch of crap that would not last. Well kick me in the ass because as we all know...I ain't got squat back and lost some prime stuff. Now, I have been picking up Pre Ban Ar's as fast as my budget will allow, buying good deals only. If I pay $1200 to $1300 per rifle, so what, it's only $300 to $400 more than a post ban. I am planing to get as many stripped lowers from now until the ban is decided because I do believe the ban will continue in some form or another. Lets face it, shooting sports simply do not get great reviews. Hell, I work in Law Enforcement and every time I buy a rifle everyone has a smart ass comment. It's a sure thing that as the years go by, fast cars and cool guns will become a thing of the past. LETS ALL HOPE I'M WRONG. |
|
Quoted: I've seen lots of arguments for and against why this will be renewed. But would you guys actually vote against a republican who supports this renewal? Wouldn't this just help the democrats? Wouldn't vote for a republican if this were the case. And yeah, I've heard the arguments about how this would only help the dems and make things worse. So we would have a choice between a slow loss of our constitution or a rapid loss. I say bring it the fuck on. Let's get it over with for once and for all. If they ever put that bitch Klinton in the oval office there WILL be a revolution. I firmly believe that. As for the argument that there are other issues that are equally important I say: not to me. And what issues anyway? Taxes and entitlement programs? Both are clearly intertwined and there is such an entitlement constituency in this nation now that it will never be stopped. They will only stand with their hands out demanding more, more, more. And the politicians will give it to them. Even the republicans. They are simply too large a voting block. What about illegal immigration? Lost as well for the exact same reason. In fact, this battle was lost decades ago. National defense? I'll give you that one. At least for now. At least until the money runs out. Abortion? Lost. Personal responsibility and morality? End entitlement programs and that one would fall into place. Yeah, fat chance. No, I'm afraid it will take one hell of a political fight and possible force of arms before it is over. Compromise is no longer an option. It has got us to where we are today. It is liberal's wet dream that we will continue to compromise our rights and freedoms away. Republican politicians take our voting block for granted. They think they own us. Why not? They have. Time to let them know otherwise. |
|
Quoted: I cannot think of anyone that has been charged for a crime under the current ban. I also performed a thurough internet search with 0 results. You may have overlooked that barely publicized little incident referred to by the press as the "DC Sniper Shootings". They used an M4 style Bushmaster as I recall.... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I cannot think of anyone that has been charged for a crime under the current ban. I also performed a thurough internet search with 0 results. You may have overlooked that barely publicized little incident referred to by the press as the "DC Sniper Shootings". They used an M4 style Bushmaster as I recall.... Yes, but was the Bushy they used in violation of the '94 Crime Bill? For example, was it a post-ban gun illegally modified to with a flash hider or tele-stock? That's what he's referring to. Actual prosectutions for violating the AWB, not for commiting murder with a legal weapon. Legal in the AWB sense, that is. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I cannot think of anyone that has been charged for a crime under the current ban. I also performed a thurough internet search with 0 results. You may have overlooked that barely publicized little incident referred to by the press as the "DC Sniper Shootings". They used an M4 style Bushmaster as I recall.... I believe those two idiots were charge with murder, not AWB violations. Also they had a postban rifle if I remember correctly, so there was no violation of the AWB. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I think some of you guys have forgotten how a new law has to be made. The old ban will sunset so some sort of new law has to be written. Even if the anti's could get the house to pass a new law, which I doubt will happen with the current setup. All you need is one pro-gun Senator to filibuster the proposed new law and it will take 60 Senators to override that filibuster, which will be hard to do. Is it impossible for a new law to be passed? No its not, that is why you all need to do your part to help this law stay gone for good in 2004. It is highly possible that the anti's in congress will attempt to attach a rider to another very necessary bill which will change only the date of expiration of the '94 AW ban. Hell, half of congress may not even be aware that it is in the bill. This is going to require quite a bit of diligence on our part. Yes someone could attach a rider into a bill, but someone could also attach a rider striking the AWB languange as well. Given that this is such a hot issue, no one is going to just try and slip something like this through in one form or another. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think some of you guys have forgotten how a new law has to be made. The old ban will sunset so some sort of new law has to be written. Even if the anti's could get the house to pass a new law, which I doubt will happen with the current setup. All you need is one pro-gun Senator to filibuster the proposed new law and it will take 60 Senators to override that filibuster, which will be hard to do. Is it impossible for a new law to be passed? No its not, that is why you all need to do your part to help this law stay gone for good in 2004. It is highly possible that the anti's in congress will attempt to attach a rider to another very necessary bill which will change only the date of expiration of the '94 AW ban. Hell, half of congress may not even be aware that it is in the bill. This is going to require quite a bit of diligence on our part. Yes someone could attach a rider into a bill, but someone could also attach a rider striking the AWB languange as well. Given that this is such a hot issue, no one is going to just try and slip something like this through in one form or another. Hope your right. Unfortunately, our side does not seem to go in for such political cheap shots. Our enemy does. |
|
Quoted: Yes, but was the Bushy they used in violation of the '94 Crime Bill? For example, was it a post-ban gun illegally modified to with a flash hider or tele-stock? That's what he's referring to. Actual prosectutions for violating the AWB, not for commiting murder with a legal weapon. Legal in the AWB sense, that is. Originally posted by VA gunnut: I believe those two idiots were charge with murder, not AWB violations. Also they had a postban rifle if I remember correctly, so there was no violation of the AWB. You're both absolutely correct. What I was referring to was the greater scope of the shootings;ie: an "assault weapon" was used. That it was not an illegal configuration, but rather one currently allowed by law is even worse for our side. |
AR Sponsor