AWB part II

[Symbolic]

I wasn't old enough to understand or even know about the AWB under Clinton. Now that Obama has put some weight behind an AWB ressurection, what does that mean for those who have these "assault weapons"? What was it like for those of you prior to the Clinton AWB who had them and what was it like during? What changed then and what will change now?

[TrickyNicky]

I believe it means there's no more "AW" for sale. Whatever you already own is yours, grandfathered in so to say but good luck getting new regular capacity magazines. Old ones will be available at a high premium but the cost will be outrageous. I'm not sure if uppers get thrown on the banned wagon or just lowers, either way it is unfortunately time to stock up.

[Jonnin]

All the clinton ban really in practice did was triple the value of magazines that held more than 10 rounds. There never really seemed to be any shortage of guns of any type here in TN. I remember paying $50+ for a 15 round mag for a common pistol. I remember the same tables and tables of AR and AK rifles for sale at shows, so if the actual guns were banned and grandfathered in there were pleny of them (not sure about the prices though).

[E4 No More]

I believe that it was Bush the elder who signed the first AWB.

[atlas3025]

I believe that it was Bush the elder who signed the first AWB.

Bush the elder hosed us on machine guns, IIRC. But it was definitely Clinton in 94 who signed the aptly named "Crime Bill" which included 100,000 new cops (didn't happen), midnight basketball (what?), high cap mag ban and the AWB. The AWB allows you to have only 2 of the "evil features" found on military styple rifles. The "features" inclouded, detachable mag, bayonet lug, pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor/grenage launcher (they mainly meant muzzle device). I may be leaving something out.

Anyway, what you say where guns that kept the pistol grip and detachable magazine, but gave up all the other features. You will still note the AR's out there without threaded barrels for flash suppressors.

High Cap mags where also banned, except for police, who are better than civilians.

Many guns where banned by name. I think the Tec 9 and "Streetsweepers" were among them, but there were a lot. Existing guns and magazines were left alone, but any gun or mag made after the date that didn't comply were not avialable to civilians. I am still stunned that the law sunsetted in 2004.

Edited October 17, 2012 by atlas3025

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Bush the elder hosed us on machine guns, IIRC. But it was definitely Clinton in 94 who signed the aptly named "Crime Bill" which included 100,000 new cops (didn't happen), midnight basketball (what?), high cap mag ban and the AWB. The AWB allows you to have only 2 of the "evil features" found on military styple rifles. The "features" inclouded, detachable mag, bayonet lug, pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor/grenage launcher (they mainly meant muzzle device). I may be leaving something out.

Anyway, what you say where guns that kept the pistol grip and detachable magazine, but gave up all the other features. You will still note the AR's out there without threaded barrels for flash suppressors.

High Cap mags where also banned, except for police, who are better than civilians.

Many guns where banned by name. I think the Tec 9 and "Streetsweepers" were among them, but there were a lot. Existing guns and magazines were left alone, but any gun or mag made after the date that didn't comply were not avialable to civilians. I am still stunned that the law sunsetted in 2004.

I think it was Reagan who signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 which terminated and

closed us to the existing machine gun stock. No more newly manufactured machine guns to private citizens.

Hughes Amendment, I think. But Daddy Bush would have done it. Reagan shouldn't have allowed that bill

with thatamendment. As far as I am concerned, he either wasn't aware of it, or he didn't think it through

when signing. Could be wrong, though. Maybe the NRA didn't care about it, either. Don't remember, exactly.

[Dolomite_supafly]

It was Clinton who did the 1994 AWB that expired in 2004. Don't think for one second that any future ban will only be like the 1994 ban. Any new ban will be much more restrictive. I see it being a carbon copy of the California laws except on a national level.

The Hughes ammendment, which banned the purchase of new MG in 1986, was the work of Charlie Rangel. The same Charlie Rangel who has been investigated for ethics violations, bribes and numerous other things that indicate low morals. The Republicans were calling for a by name vote and Rangel, being the speaker of the house, called for a voice vote. The measure was voted down but Rangel declared it passed on the voice vote. That is why he wanted a voice vote and not a by name vote because he could declare it passed. You could hear the obvious disgust with what had happened but Charlie said it passed so it passed.

I think Obama will try to get the House and Senate to pass but when it doesn't I suspect he will use an executive order to put it in place considering he has championed that pratice during his first term. That or he will just direct the policy makers and policy enforcers to just "make it happen" and let the courts sort out what is legal and what it not. He probably realizes that most gun owners cannot afford a lawyer to sue for the seized items back.

He, and his policy makers, have already hit the gun industry really hard. Surplus powder can no longer be sold to private parties effective this week. As is any component of military ammo that is torn down. Brass can no longer be sold to civillians as well as 62 grain "green tip" bullets. They are going to make our guns less appealing by removing our ability to afford to shoot them. And when we can't use them we will be less likely to resist. The transport of powder, smokeless or otherwise, now costs a lot more through mandatory licensing and insurance. There is also a push by this administration to require background checks, similar to firearms, for anyone buying components in "large" quantities. It hasn't happened yet but it is nothing more than a memo to change the policy. And that is the problem, our representatives are allowing rules to be put in place that should be laws that passed both the house and senate.

There will be a day when reloading, shooting and owning firearms will be such a huge hassle that there will be fewer and fewer new shooters. And when us "old" shooters pass away the cycle of gun ownership will be broken. And the second that happens the American citizens become subjects.

If you are on the fence with Romney, like I was, now is the time to give up on anyone else but Romney. If for nothing else for the common bond that brings us here that is firearms. Whether you have a gun to hunt, for sports, for defense or just because you can you need to unite with your fellow gun owners to vote Obama, and any other Democrat, out of office. Anything less will result in a very, very dark time in our history.

Dolomite

[DaveS]

It was Clinton who did the 1994 AWB that expired in 2004. Don't think for one second that any future ban will only be like the 1994 ban. Any new ban will be much more restrictive. I see it being a carbon copy of the California laws except on a national level.

The Hughes ammendment, which banned the purchase of new MG in 1986, was the work of Charlie Rangel. The same Charlie Rangel who has been investigated for ethics violations, bribes and numerous other things that indicate low morals. The Republicans were calling for a by name vote and Rangel, being the speaker of the house, called for a voice vote. The measure was voted down but Rangel declared it passed on the voice vote. That is why he wanted a voice vote and not a by name vote because he could declare it passed. You could hear the obvious disgust with what had happened but Charlie said it passed so it passed.

I think Obama will try to get the House and Senate to pass but when it doesn't I suspect he will use an executive order to put it in place considering he has championed that pratice during his first term. That or he will just direct the policy makers and policy enforcers to just "make it happen" and let the courts sort out what is legal and what it not. He probably realizes that most gun owners cannot afford a lawyer to sue for the seized items back.

He, and his policy makers, have already hit the gun industry really hard. Surplus powder can no longer be sold to private parties effective this week. As is any component of military ammo that is torn down. Brass can no longer be sold to civillians as well as 62 grain "green tip" bullets. They are going to make our guns less appealing by removing our ability to afford to shoot them. And when we can't use them we will be less likely to resist. The transport of powder, smokeless or otherwise, now costs a lot more through mandatory licensing and insurance. There is also a push by this administration to require background checks, similar to firearms, for anyone buying components in "large" quantities. It hasn't happened yet but it is nothing more than a memo to change the policy. And that is the problem, our representatives are allowing rules to be put in place that should be laws that passed both the house and senate.

There will be a day when reloading, shooting and owning firearms will be such a huge hassle that there will be fewer and fewer new shooters. And when us "old" shooters pass away the cycle of gun ownership will be broken. And the second that happens the American citizens become subjects.

If you are on the fence with Romney, like I was, now is the time to give up on anyone else but Romney. If for nothing else for the common bond that brings us here that is firearms. Whether you have a gun to hunt, for sports, for defense or just because you can you need to unite with your fellow gun owners to vote Obama, and any other Democrat, out of office. Anything less will result in a very, very dark time in our history.

Dolomite

Very well said Dol!

Dave S

[Slasher]

If you are on the fence with Romney, like I was, now is the time to give up on anyone else but Romney. If for nothing else for the common bond that brings us here that is firearms. Whether you have a gun to hunt, for sports, for defense or just because you can you need to unite with your fellow gun owners to vote Obama, and any other Democrat, out of office. Anything less will result in a very, very dark time in our history.

Dolomite

What Dolomite says cannot be emphasized enough.

Tom Gresham brought up the fact that on the change.gov website they have added back their agenda for guns and the second amendment. Click on this link http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/ and scroll down to the Crime and Law Enforcement section. Check out the bullet point Address Gun Violence in Cities. There is some really scary things in there but it all ends with they want to make the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Add to that the fact that the next president will appoint two if not three supreme court justices and it becomes very evident that we need to get him out of office. Imagine what this country will look like if Barry gets to pick two more like his last two picks. It would devastate this country for at least the next forty years. Imagine if the supreme court voted down Heller and McDonald? That is exactly what you would have to look forward to for the rest of our lives and probably our kids also.

Just my $0.02.

[runco]

I still laugh when someone mentions an assault weapon. What is an assault weapon? Mechanically speaking and balistically speaking what is the difference between an assault weapon and a Remington 7400 hunting rifle, other than cosmetics and the magazine quantity. I personally believe the old trusty hunting rifle 7400 has a whole lot more fire power than a AR15 on a balistic basis.

[SingleStack]

I was in upstate ny during the ban. Ny state still has a ban of their own, but thats another story. During the ban prices spiked for pre-ban weapons and mags. fifty bucks for 25 round 1022 mags

[Sam1]

I see it being a carbon copy of the California laws except on a national level.

Sweet baby Jesus - grab your guns, bibles and mountain dew, let's head to the hills!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just asking, but what law actually mandates the restriction against surplus powders and used brass? Rhetorical!

I can't recall the law, but I do recall the administration doing these things. Congress(House members) attempted

to get to the bottom of this and won temporarily, but the administration seems hell bent to do this.

Unlawful acts in my opinion. Good post, Gordon!

[RobertNashville]

A new AWB or even a complete confiscation of all firearms wouldn't affect me at all...I don't have any guns (that's my story and I'm sticking to it).