Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Assault ban???? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/24/2012 4:29:16 PM EDT
| If a ban happens and one owns a couple receivers that were obviously purchased before hand can one still build on them, legally? I am sure parts will be extremely expensive but...... Sorry if it is a stupid question. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
more my concern was the statement of" "It's not really the high capacity automatic rifles that are the problem, its the low cost handguns that are on the market" to paraphrase Obama The 1994 AWB had zilch to do with automatic rifles. I know that, and you know that, but I don't think the guy in the white house has a clue!!LOL!! Of course Romney replied that automatic weapons are illegal to own in this country anyway so thats not the concern right now!LOL!! |
|
The premise of the OP's question is that a new AWB will resemble the old one, in having a "grandfather" clause. The gun-controllers have made clear that they consider the original AWB to have been a failure, precisely because it grandfathered too many existing weapons. (Think how many more have been made between 2004 and the present.) They won't make that "mistake" again.
That said, the chance of a new AWB being enacted in the current political climate is between slim and none. All the momentum is on the side of gun owners. Relax. |
| The mood in the country has shifted so much that average, everyday people are less prone to comply with things they feel aren't right under their personal ideology. So the relevant question is "think anybody would comply if they passed an assault weapons ban?" |
|
It really would depend on exactly how AWB2 would be written.
I would expect it to not have a sunset clause and not just ban some guns by name. A permanent ban on production of weapons with certain characteristics would be one goal. Registration (and later confiscation) of previously manufactured weapons would be another goal. A bill written to attain either goal would be a big political chore to get passed even if the public was in favor. Obama would have to spend every last bit of political capital he has to get laws like this enacted. Romney would destroy any chance he has for being re-elected with his current coalition by even trying this. |
|
5 dollars says that any AWB coming down the pipe that has any possibility of being passed is going to focus solely on "High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices" and will probably leave the bayonet lugs and shoulder things that go up alone. It *might* also apply to threaded barrels, since ZOMG assassins use silencers. But like so many have said before me, democrats *do* still remember 1996.
|
|
1. The dems still remember 96
2. Public was somewhat in favor in 94 for an AWB, now it is not. 3. A magazine ban is possible but also not likely, it will never make it past the House. Even in the Senate it would be questionable if something would like that would pass. |
|
IF a new "Assault Weapons" ban does go into effect, you can be sure that it will be much more stringent than the 1994 ban. The language as written left too many "loop holes" and didn't ban near enough firearms that they were hoping to ban. I suspect that next time around our existing ARs and similar firearms will not be grandfathered, or if they are, will be regulated much the same way full auto, SBRs and AOWs are regulated now.
It doesn't matter that there was no increase in firearm crime after the 2004 sunset; that never was the point. The point is to restrict firearm ownership, period. |
|
Quoted:
What's easier to ban or regulate then a firearm? The ammunition that goes in it. Imagine no tula, wolf ect. ammo for AK'S, or some crazy tax applied to ammo making it very expensive. Obamma is the king of executive directives. Agreed. I think all who state "it won't get through congress" are naive..... Obama will EO whatever the fuck he wants to if he gets in again. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
more my concern was the statement of" "It's not really the high capacity automatic rifles that are the problem, its the low cost handguns that are on the market" to paraphrase Obama Good thing my pistols aren't low cost! Shall not be infringed. It's still true, cheap handguns kill more people than semi auto rifles in this country, and most of them are stolen..... Good thing I don't like cheap handguns..... |
the problem comes in as how much is low cost. I might say well low cost is under$1500 and the next guy says $400. You can buy used Glocks all day long for low cost. The other thing I had heard was that one thing that they were looking at was trying to ban any weapon that could be made be "high capacity" As most of us know that is a BROAD range of weapons 
|
|
Gun control is a loosing battle. It cost seats and doesn't pay. It does not lower gun violence nor crime. So I am betting nothing major gets introduced. Obama has to address it to pull in his base, but he knows it isn't going anywhere. If he does get re-elected, he will have bigger fish to fry.
If it is like the last ban, you have to 'assemble' the lower into a firearm. The ATF ruled that you have to assemble it into a working rifle in an assault configuration to be a grandfathered assault weapon (which was defined as 3 or more features). That ruling would loose all day in court as the lower is considered the firearm. But it was never challenged in court. You can't make laws retroactive, so they would need to either grandfather in weapons or compensate us for them. So I would bet on the side of existing stuff being grandfathered in. |
|
Quoted:
It really would depend on exactly how AWB2 would be written. I would expect it to not have a sunset clause and not just ban some guns by name. A permanent ban on production of weapons with certain characteristics would be one goal. Registration (and later confiscation) of previously manufactured weapons would be another goal. A bill written to attain either goal would be a big political chore to get passed even if the public was in favor. Obama would have to spend every last bit of political capital he has to get laws like this enacted. Romney would destroy any chance he has for being re-elected with his current coalition by even trying this. We're in agreement. People like to catastrophize about another AWB, but it's in the same category as worrying about a Zombie Apocalypse - except the Zombie Apocalypse has greater odds of happening. No one wants an AWB: 1. The democrats are fully aware that they lost majorities in the hose and senate after the '94 AWB in large part because of the AWB, so in essence passage of that single bill cost them their entire agenda and all the other things on that agenda that were far more important. 2. Whether you like him or not, Obama has bigger fish to fry and he is not an idiot. He's not going to waste political capital on an AWB that is meaningless for any purpose other than appeasing a few left wing extremists who think restricting legal gun owners does anything to reduce violence by criminals who already ignore the law. There's ample data out there to show that the AWB had zero effect on reducing crime and most people believe it or not see the recent theater shooting as the isolated event it was - and identify the actual problem of inadequate enforcement of current gun laws, straw purchases and lack of any back criminal ground checks on private sales. 3. The NRA lost members and supporters from the evil black rifle crowd after they sold out and stopped opposing the AWB in exchange for some guarantees on hunting rights for the Elmer Fudd type members. It's taken them 15 plus years to win back those lost EBR members. If they get tempted to cave on the issue again, all they have to do to remind themselves that it's a bad idea is to walk downstairs to the NRS Headquarters range and see who is shooting what. The number of EBRs there on any given day is significant - and it's far greater than the number of people showing up with a hunting rifle. 4. I don't think the general non shooting public even cares that much for an AWB. Many don't see the need to own them, but many also don't really see them as a serious threat either. If you added NICS checks on private sales, most of the angst would be eliminated. Consequently, I don't see an AWB happening any time soon. In fact the only thing I think may be on the horizon is a ban on private sales, and that would really suck. *Now the controversial thought to prevent that* - just something to think about... Banning private sales entirely would really suck and would leave private owners looking at about a 30% to 50% loss if they had to sell to a dealer. At a minimum it would leave buyer and sellers faced with the cost of FFL transfer fees that if anything would get higher with private sales banned. I know, no one wants to have to deal with the local gun shop transfer fee BS on a private sale, but to be real honest, realistic and responsible about this, I'd be ok with a visit to a county Sheriff's office to have them run the NCIS check on the buyer at no cost or minimal cost. They're already usually involved in handgun permits anyway so this would be a minor burden for them. Better yet, it could be done via a free government web site which would provide a "proceed" or deny to the seller and track the transfer in the same manner as a dealer, but without the need for the seller to maintain any paperwork. And let's be real, I'm pretty fucking conservative, but I have issues with private sales to criminals and individuals with mental illness. Maybe it's the prior law enforcement officer in me, but I recognize that some sellers just are not as ethical about who they sell to as I am. Quite frankly an easy to access NICS check for private sales makes a great deal of sense if you've got any sense of social responsibility at all. The irony here that it does not even have to be mandatory to be effective and we could self regulate to head off the issue. For example, you can run a background check on someone now on an internet website in under 5 minutes with name, address and state of residence and get pretty solid arrest and conviction information in about 5 minutes. If I'm doing a private sale I'll have that information in the initial contact and run the check. if you don't want to give me your name and address, I'm fine with that - I'll just sell to another buyer who doesn't mind. It's not being "liberal" or "taking one step toward full gun registration" it's just being a responsible citizen. Of course the back side of that might be that if you chose not to run the check on a weapon you sell and consequently sell to a criminal or nut ball, when/if his cheese does slide off his cracker and he guns down kiddies in the shopping mall, you might be facing some liability - and that would be no different with private sale background checks or without them, so in a real sense doing a check is just covering your ass. Now if the NRA got proactive and offered a *free* criminal background check for firearm sales linked through the NRA website as a free a membership benefit, I'd be all over that. It covers my ass, both legally and ethically, it makes private firearms sales look a lot less threatening in the eyes of the non shooting public than they do now, and it provides a self regulation model that would go a long ways toward the prevention of a ban on private sales. |
| In my opinion all its going to take is another shooting like the one that was uncovered in Missouri when a guys Mom turned him in because she thought he was going to shoot up a showing of the new Twighlight movie or a Walmart. She said he had been commited before and was off his meds and had recently purchased weapons and much ammo. Thank God for the mother who had the courage to make that call. |
Not legal or probable until the President issues executive order 66 which abolishes the House and Senate
Until then read the below link http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/ Quoted:
Don't worry about an AWB, when those douchebags sign the UN Small Arms Treaty, they'll let the nations that hate us decide what guns we can own! |
|
Quoted:
In my opinion all its going to take is another shooting like the one that was uncovered in Missouri when a guys Mom turned him in because she thought he was going to shoot up a showing of the new Twighlight movie or a Walmart. She said he had been commited before and was off his meds and had recently purchased weapons and much ammo. Thank God for the mother who had the courage to make that call. Oh, you mean a mental case, that wasn't supposed to own firearms according to the Brady bunch anyway? Huh, who would of thunk it?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me know how that works for you.
How about we tell everyone to suck our balls and that we are not gonna abide by any new laws Ya and don't throw away your money buying any more lowers, mags and rifles cause your just going to have to turn them in shortly anyway. 
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. " 
|
|
Yep thats the one. Quoted:
Quoted:
In my opinion all its going to take is another shooting like the one that was uncovered in Missouri when a guys Mom turned him in because she thought he was going to shoot up a showing of the new Twighlight movie or a Walmart. She said he had been commited before and was off his meds and had recently purchased weapons and much ammo. Thank God for the mother who had the courage to make that call. Oh, you mean a mental case, that wasn't supposed to own firearms according to the Brady bunch anyway? Huh, who would of thunk it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me know how that works for you.
How about we tell everyone to suck our balls and that we are not gonna abide by any new laws Ya and don't throw away your money buying any more lowers, mags and rifles cause your just going to have to turn them in shortly anyway.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. "
NIce. If you don't finish the quote, it's scarier that way. Here's the rest of the quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein: "I could not do that. The votes weren't here." And that was the 1994 AWB. If the votes were not there then, they sure as hell are not there now. In the wake of the ban with significant Democratic losses in both house and senate majorities, the Dems pretty much learned that gun bans and gun control in general are a political third rail that will cost them the political clout needed to promote more important agenda items. What does hurt us though are your basic asshats who convey the message that gun owners are a bunch of but balls. You know...the kind of guy who'd suggest we should just tell them to suck our balls and ignore any new laws. That does not help the cause for anyone except the anti-gun crowd. |
|
I agree that if there is another ban, the authors will be careful to write it in explicit language that will define exactly which firearms they want banned. I believe that next time they will go after all semi-auto, handgun, shotgun, and rifle, especially AR type rifles. And all hi-cap magazines. I also believe that having "pre-ban" stripped AR lowers won't make any difference. The language of the ban (next time) will be clear enough that we will not be able to purchase any parts and most probably will be required by law to turn in semi-auto and hi-cap firearms and magazines, with stiff penalties for non-compliance.
Remember that firearm bans are never about crime control. It is purely to restrict the private ownership of firearms. The last ban proved that there was no decrease in violent crime after it was enacted and no increase in violent crime after it's sunset. Military "style" firearms will be the first to go. It will take a while to lose the rest of our firearms, but it is coming; depending upon how quickly the Supreme Court is filled with "progressive" judges. Buy what firearms you want now and enjoy them now. As far as for how the Democrats lost seats after the last ban was passed; times have definitely changed. Obama was re-elected, it is a whole new game now. |
|
Quoted:
Obama did not get re-elected because a majority of Americans are more liberal, he got re-elected as the average American won't vote for the wackadoo extreme conservative, big money "de-regulate and outsource as long as it generates a profit for investors", screw the little guy Republican party platform - and the presidential candidates it puts forward.
As far as for how the Democrats lost seats after the last ban was passed; times have definitely changed. Obama was re-elected, it is a whole new game now. Not much changed in either the house or the senate and that speaks directly against what you're suggesting. |
|
Quoted:
he got re-elected as the average American won't vote for the wackadoo extreme conservative, big money "de-regulate and outsource as long as it generates a profit for investors", screw the little guy Republican party platform - and the presidential candidates it puts forward. Your off your meds if you think that is an accurate description of Romney's defeat. If i was you I would probably refrain from voting if thats how you filter news, judge people, and make political decisions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obama did not get re-elected because a majority of Americans are more liberal, he got re-elected as the average American won't vote for the wackadoo extreme conservative, big money "de-regulate and outsource as long as it generates a profit for investors", screw the little guy Republican party platform - and the presidential candidates it puts forward.
As far as for how the Democrats lost seats after the last ban was passed; times have definitely changed. Obama was re-elected, it is a whole new game now. Not much changed in either the house or the senate and that speaks directly against what you're suggesting. I am not saying that Romney was a great choice. There is a very good chance that Obama will have the opportunity to nominate at least two Supreme Court justices. They will be liberal like the last that he put on the bench. It will definitely affect future rulings on Second Amendment issues. There was a lot more at stake in the last election than just who would be president. No doubt about it we will find out who is right soon enough. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me know how that works for you.
How about we tell everyone to suck our balls and that we are not gonna abide by any new laws Ya and don't throw away your money buying any more lowers, mags and rifles cause your just going to have to turn them in shortly anyway.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. "
NIce. If you don't finish the quote, it's scarier that way. Here's the rest of the quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein: "I could not do that. The votes weren't here." And that was the 1994 AWB. If the votes were not there then, they sure as hell are not there now. In the wake of the ban with significant Democratic losses in both house and senate majorities, the Dems pretty much learned that gun bans and gun control in general are a political third rail that will cost them the political clout needed to promote more important agenda items. What does hurt us though are your basic asshats who convey the message that gun owners are a bunch of but balls. You know...the kind of guy who'd suggest we should just tell them to suck our balls and ignore any new laws. That does not help the cause for anyone except the anti-gun crowd. Seemed to work well for the Canadians. You can grovel at the feet of your masters and turn in your FAL. I'm not turning in shit. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me know how that works for you.
How about we tell everyone to suck our balls and that we are not gonna abide by any new laws Ya and don't throw away your money buying any more lowers, mags and rifles cause your just going to have to turn them in shortly anyway.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. "
NIce. If you don't finish the quote, it's scarier that way. Here's the rest of the quote from Senator Dianne Feinstein: "I could not do that. The votes weren't here." And that was the 1994 AWB. If the votes were not there then, they sure as hell are not there now. In the wake of the ban with significant Democratic losses in both house and senate majorities, the Dems pretty much learned that gun bans and gun control in general are a political third rail that will cost them the political clout needed to promote more important agenda items. What does hurt us though are your basic asshats who convey the message that gun owners are a bunch of but balls. You know...the kind of guy who'd suggest we should just tell them to suck our balls and ignore any new laws. That does not help the cause for anyone except the anti-gun crowd. I was kinda with you until you pulled that turd out of your hat. Do you realize that the guy you called a "basic asshat" is a a fucking career Airborne Ranger that has dedicated his life to serving my country? I believe he would be one to not follow unconstitutional orders. Call him what you want, because he fights for your First Amendment to do so, but I believe him when he says he would say "Suck my balls" to an unconstitutional order. He might not verbalize to his "Superior" that issued the illegal order to suck his balls, but I believe he, and many more good folks in our military might overlook some things that they see while under orders that directly oppose Our Constitution. Thank You, Freefall! Give em hell! 
|
|
Quoted:
Not legal or probable until the President issues executive order 66 which abolishes the House and Senate
Until then read the below link http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/ Quoted:
Don't worry about an AWB, when those douchebags sign the UN Small Arms Treaty, they'll let the nations that hate us decide what guns we can own! Hey, it wouldn't be the first thing they've passed before writing it. In all seriousness, while it seems unlikely that they would succeed, it does not mean that they would not be perfectly happy to try, if they get the chance. It has been said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Even if it does not seem likely now, we should still be watchful and push back against encroachments with all vigour. Quoted:
Quoted:
Obama did not get re-elected because a majority of Americans are more liberal, he got re-elected as the average American won't vote for the wackadoo extreme conservative, big money "de-regulate and outsource as long as it generates a profit for investors", screw the little guy Republican party platform - and the presidential candidates it puts forward.
As far as for how the Democrats lost seats after the last ban was passed; times have definitely changed. Obama was re-elected, it is a whole new game now. Not much changed in either the house or the senate and that speaks directly against what you're suggesting. See, that right there speaks to the effectiveness of near half a billion dollars in negative advertising, and some of the most tilted media coverage I have yet seen. How many times have you watched a moderator tell a bald faced lie on live TV to support their favored candidate? Pop Quiz: Who said "Voting is the best revenge"? |
|
Ban or no ban, as I've said in several posts, the job of the Socialists is to ban your guns. Those anti-gunners in power wake up every morning thinking about how they're going to accomplish that. No one can foresee the future and no one can guarantee that somehow, on some level, the anti-gunners won't pass some type of legislation limiting that right.
All it would take is a mass shooting at a school with an AR or AK and you can bet things would quickly change against the evill black rifles. Now, in the meantime, did you send money to the NRA and GOA and 2nd Amendment Foundation? What sickens me worse than a gun-banner are those that own guns yet haven't sent one cent to NRA. Without the NRA all we'd have are BB guns, black powder and single-shot hunting rifles. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Assault ban???? (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor