Preparing for a new Assault Weapons Ban

General discussions regarding topics that aren't covered in one of the other sub-forums. NO DISCUSSION OF POLITICS!

Moderators: ZS Global Moderators, ZS Postal Match Officers

WSHTF
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: wshtf.com
Contact:

Preparing for a new Assault Weapons Ban

Post by WSHTF » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:18 pm

I have a question that's been gnawing at my soul for a day or two now. I turn to you not in hopes of getting legal advice, but of hearing opinions on the originality of my thoughts.

Assume the following:
  1. Any new AWB has a grandfather clause similar to the last AWB.
  2. BATFE will consider you to be in possession of a machine gun if you merely have all the parts under your control, regardless of their assembled state. In short, owning all the parts = owning the weapon assembled, in the eyes of the law. (This is currently the way it works, anyhow.)
Here's the question, then:

Does that same logic apply to non-machine-gun "assault weapons"?

If I buy a non-AW rifle and all the parts necessary to convert it into an AW (such as pistol grip, hi-cap magazines, forward pistol grip, bayonet lugs, flash hider, etc) but don't actually do the conversion work...

...then would it be grandfathered (and thus legal to assemble) after such a ban was put in place?

I ask only because I know I'm a procrastinating fool who would probably buy all the parts and not immediately put it together, and I don't want to have to rush that kind of work to beat any potential ban that might be down the road.

(I live in IL, so even if there's no federal ban in the near future, there's always the threat that a statewide ban might be passed. Illinois sucks.)[/b]

User avatar
phil_in_cs
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 11424
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:18 pm
Location: central tx

Post by phil_in_cs » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:23 pm

This is often discussed here; please review older posts.

Also remember the last AWB cost a political party control of both houses. That's not to say they won't do it again, but I'm cynical enough to think all sides care more about getting elected than any specific issue.
Don't confuse a belligerent and aggressive attitude with the strength, training, and conditioning needed to prevail in a fight. How do you know you have the Will To Win, if you don't even have the will to train?

WSHTF
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: wshtf.com
Contact:

Post by WSHTF » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:37 pm

Man, I don't want to be rude, but did you actually read the post, or just respond to the subject line?

I agree with the general principle that the parties care more about reelection than issues, but it is pretty clear that it is a possibility, and a renewal of the old ban has been advocated by both sides of the aisle for some time now.

Regardless, my post related more to a novel interpretation of a specific set of BATFE regulations, not on the ban itself. Any input on that?

User avatar
mk_ultra
* * * * *
Posts: 3880
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:14 pm
Location: Mpls , Mn

Post by mk_ultra » Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm

Slow down , I can see this going downhill easily.

Now , I read the OP 3 times , and i am not entirely sure what you are asking .

Care to clear that up ?

:D
This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence - Vyvyan

User avatar
PistolPete
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 6341
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: St Louis

Post by PistolPete » Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:33 pm

It depends entirely on how the law is written. A dozen of these types of regulations get proposed every session of congress. Some are more encompassing than others. It all depends on what the specific law that creates the ban says.

So, no one can answer you question, unless you outline the specifics of a potential law, and then you've answered it for yourself.
Steemit, where I write stuff now

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
- Mark Twain
Image

User avatar
Festus Hagen
* * * * *
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:56 pm
Location: New York

Post by Festus Hagen » Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:40 pm

Seems to me like this. If you can prove that you bought all the parts before the ban, and indeed there is a grandfather clause, I don't see the problem. Are you going to TELL someone you hadn't assembled everything before the ban took effect? I'm not condoning breaking a theoretical law, but you know what I'm sayin'

Long and short of it? Get to work!!!!
“What do you say we gather the camp elders; Be perplexed amongst friends?” – Al Swearengen (Deadwood)

WSHTF
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: wshtf.com
Contact:

Post by WSHTF » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:55 pm

mk_ultra wrote:Slow down , I can see this going downhill easily.

Now , I read the OP 3 times , and i am not entirely sure what you are asking .

Care to clear that up ?

:D
Ok, wasn't tryin' to start anything, sorry if it sounded that way... I'm aware of the politics rule and I don't want to talk politics - I want to talk regulations, based on historical precedent. ;)

I'm not sure if I can clarify the question any more, but I'll try:

Today, if you have a semiautomatic weapon AND a parts kit which will convert it to an automatic weapon, then you are (according to the .gov) in possession of an automatic weapon. There is no legal distinction between a non-modified weapon or a modified weapon - the only issue is whether you are in possession of all the necessary parts. (Own the parts, own the weapon)

I'm simply asking if the same standard would apply to any (potential) renewal of the 1994-2004 AWB (as it was worded), in terms of owning a sporting version of a rifle as well as all the parts it would take to make it an assault weapon. (Own the parts, own the weapon?)

-------
It's not like I'd advertise the fact that my AW wasn't assembled before the ban, but the idea here is a theoretical exercise in keeping me legally compliant.

Max
*
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:23 am

well

Post by Max » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:14 pm

I agree with the rest, this topic is so vague and has so many what-ifs associated with it that it's probably not worth getting too worked up about. Failing to heed my own advice, here goes:

One of the biggest problems with the past AWB was the grandfathering issue - if a gun was made before a certain date, it was okay in its "evil" configuration, but if made after a certain date, it couldn't have certain "evil features." Some poor unsuspecting person not well versed in the law picks up a post-ban AR, for example, then sees a really cool stock at the gun show, slaps it on his AR, and BAM he has just committed a crime. There were also stories about people that had a post-ban rifle and a prohibited part confiscated during a search or raid, and by the time the weapon in question made it to the courtroom, the parts had mysteriously been assembled in such a way that the weapon violated the law.

Apart from the sheer stupidity and unconstitutionality of the appearance-based AWB, it endangered poor unsuspecting novice firearms owners, it endangered firearms enthusiasts that owned a combination of pre- and post-ban weapons and parts, and it was very difficult to enforce as well as being completely impractical in reducing crime. It also drove up prices AND sales of pre- and post-ban rifles as well as parts.

- the anti-gunners, the hard core ones, learned a lot from the previous assault weapons ban - the cosmetic features were easy enough to modify, leading to non-collapsing collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs being ground off to prevent drive-by bayonettings, and those dumb-looking thumbhole stocks. What did we learn from this? If you want to ban a gun, LIST it by NAME - you can bet that when the next assault weapons ban comes out, it will just say something like "All variants and models of the AK-47 series rifle" or something like that.

Alternately, the ban will encompass a much broader field of weapons, such as all magazine-fed semi-automatics or something similar to that.
I also believe that the next one will not be a "ban" which has an expiration date, but a law, which does not expire. Finally, any future assault weapons legislation will not have a grandfather clause - after a certain date, possession is a felony, assembled or not.

The likelihood of any assault-weapons law passing is something you will have to decide for yourself based on your opinions of our esteemed representatives on Capitol Hill, but anti-gunners and pro-gunners both learned from the last one, and you can bet it will be different.

User avatar
Ovationman
* * * * *
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:08 pm
Location: Check VA

Post by Ovationman » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:22 pm

If the whole supreme court battle goes to the pro gun rights people(I have heard it most likely will) then geting an AW ban passed will be really hard to do.

Trebor
* * * * *
Posts: 4444
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:14 am

Post by Trebor » Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:32 pm

There is no definite answer to your question.

It would depend on the exact wording of the law. The law *could* be written in such a way that it would ban parts and not just guns.

It's all just speculation unless you have the text of the actual law in front of you.
Image
----
R.I.P HK33K - Gone, but not forgetten.

User avatar
Obiwan
BANNED
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:12 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by Obiwan » Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:11 am

Hypothetically speaking

You could probably assemble the weapon in the time spent talking about it :wink:
"One is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." (LtCOL. Jeff Cooper U.S.M.C.)

User avatar
thorian
* * * * *
Posts: 4544
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:27 am
Location: Outside of Columbia MO
Contact:

Post by thorian » Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:23 am

well if you want to know how a possible AWB would be worded I suggest you read the text of HB. 1022

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

It has been submitted to every congress for years now and has died but they keep submitting it. so it may eventually get through after all there are 61 democrat representatives and 0 republican representatives sponsoring it.

Here are your potentially banned outright rifles pistols and shotguns. I am only reporting the facts as submitted before congress I have no intrest in the discussion of the constitutionality of this law or the ability of the sponsors.
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.
VOL FF 1 & 2, EMT-B, Hazmat Ops, Vehicle Extrication Technician, High angle rescue technician, and that is just the hobby...

User avatar
dogbane
* * * * *
Posts: 14417
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:44 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: the usual ones
Location: Dogbane Patch, Carolina Piedmont

Re: Preparing for a new Assault Weapons Ban

Post by dogbane » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:17 am

WSHTF wrote:a question that's been gnawing at my soul
Heavy, man.

Hyperbole much?

:roll:
Mostly not here anymore.

User avatar
mantis
* * * * *
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Brantford, Ontario

Post by mantis » Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:43 pm

Most of the firearms on that list are on the list of firearms prohibited in Canada. Our list is longer although some of the firearms (such as the AR) on that list are classified as restricted (same as hand guns) and some such as the mini-14 are non-restricted.
Doc Torr wrote:"Those who live by the sword get shot by those who see them coming a hundred yards away."
roscoe wrote:.....and don't plan on being The Humongous - it ain't happening.

User avatar
Yaivenov
* * * *
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:22 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Where do you even start?
Location: Aurora, CO

Post by Yaivenov » Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:49 pm

Kinda funny they put the M1 Carbine on there but not the M1 Garand. Much more punch to the Garand, and unlike popular belief, you can reload them without firing off the entire clip. It just takes some practice. :)

Edit: Just looked over the list again, am I wrong, or is there a distinct lack of M1A/M14 from that list?
Idiocracy was a documentary.

Image

User avatar
mantis
* * * * *
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Brantford, Ontario

Post by mantis » Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm

Yaivenov wrote:Kinda funny they put the M1 Carbine on there but not the M1 Garand. Much more punch to the Garand, and unlike popular belief, you can reload them without firing off the entire clip. It just takes some practice. :)

Edit: Just looked over the list again, am I wrong, or is there a distinct lack of M1A/M14 from that list?
Think that's crazy?

In Canada:

1) FN-FAL - PROHIBITED.....M14, non-restricted.
2) AK and all variants - PROHIBITED.... VZ58L, SKS - non-restricted
3) M1 carbine - restricted.....M1 Garand - non-restricted even though it's a semi-auto that carries more than 5 centrefire rounds.
4) AR and all variants including .22s - restricted......Tavor, Mini-14 non-restricted

Basically, the clowns who wrote the law picked up a copy of firearms digest and picked out all the "scary looking" guns and prohibited or restricted them regardless of which category they fell into based on their specifications.
Doc Torr wrote:"Those who live by the sword get shot by those who see them coming a hundred yards away."
roscoe wrote:.....and don't plan on being The Humongous - it ain't happening.

User avatar
Paladin1
* * * * *
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Post by Paladin1 » Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:21 pm

Who knows what form the next "gun control" bill will look like as it winds it's way through the system. After they all get done fighting over it, it may not be workable. I don't think the next administration, no matter how they lean, will get a harsh one passed. There's too much of a groundswell of opposition. My .02

User avatar
phil_in_cs
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 11424
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:18 pm
Location: central tx

Post by phil_in_cs » Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:09 am

Generally, the M1 carbine draws ire since it has a detachable magazine, and the Garand does not. Obviously, 8 rounds of .30/06 in the hands of a rifleman is a serious force. Its not that long to reload either, if you practice some.

Now, why M1-Carbine and AR's would be restricted and a mini-14 is not, who nows. Maybe someone at Ruger was effective in the lobbying. The people making the laws can make them anything they want, including restricting parts (like high cap mags) and removing grandfathering laws.
Don't confuse a belligerent and aggressive attitude with the strength, training, and conditioning needed to prevail in a fight. How do you know you have the Will To Win, if you don't even have the will to train?

User avatar
thorian
* * * * *
Posts: 4544
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:27 am
Location: Outside of Columbia MO
Contact:

Post by thorian » Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:18 am

Phil the new list has the mini 14 specifically named as banned. I assume that is the reason that Ruger is calling it the Ranch Rifle now.
VOL FF 1 & 2, EMT-B, Hazmat Ops, Vehicle Extrication Technician, High angle rescue technician, and that is just the hobby...

User avatar
mantis
* * * * *
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Brantford, Ontario

Post by mantis » Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:45 pm

thorian wrote:Phil the new list has the mini 14 specifically named as banned. I assume that is the reason that Ruger is calling it the Ranch Rifle now.
That's insane. The Mini-14 is a perfectly good hunting rifle. I frequently use mine for varmint hunting. I can't see the logic in wanting to ban a firearm like that. There are some dolts on this side of the border who want it banned to. There is no logic to it.
Doc Torr wrote:"Those who live by the sword get shot by those who see them coming a hundred yards away."
roscoe wrote:.....and don't plan on being The Humongous - it ain't happening.

Valekhai
* * *
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:02 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Post by Valekhai » Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:54 pm

mantis wrote:
thorian wrote:Phil the new list has the mini 14 specifically named as banned. I assume that is the reason that Ruger is calling it the Ranch Rifle now.
That's insane. The Mini-14 is a perfectly good hunting rifle. I frequently use mine for varmint hunting. I can't see the logic in wanting to ban a firearm like that. There are some dolts on this side of the border who want it banned to. There is no logic to it.
I have yet to see logic in a gun ban, period.
Image
I'm guarding the hooooouuuuuse.

LittleTeapot
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 2122
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:16 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by LittleTeapot » Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:00 pm

Don't sweat the search stuff too much, WSHTF. I use it a lot, but still can't find much
of the topics for which I am searching.

I searched for "assault weapons ban" received 6715 matches.

On the first page of 50, there were FOUR posts related to the assault weapons ban.
I don't want to wade through the remaining 130+ pages to look for other matches.

I still use the search function; but if I miss something, I don't feel bad.

******************************************

LINK: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act

IMHO, the language of the bill can change at any time; so, I just purchase the weapons
I want to purchase (now, while they're not banned).

I don't want to try interpret nor try to predict what MIGHT be banned.

IMHO, grandfathering will occur.
Insert Witty Signature Here


>>> Join Zombie Squad

MrAcheson
* * *
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:47 am

Post by MrAcheson » Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:30 pm

If the hypothetical new ban is like the old ban, then you want to have your current assault weapons fully assembled and documented before the date the new law takes effect. Being a semi or full auto doesn't matter. The last AWB only really applied to semi-autos anyway.

With AR-15s, you needed your stripped lower assembled as part of an AW because it is the numbered part that counts as the rifle for regulatory purposes. Before the ban went into effect, people did things like buy a large number of stripped lowers and assemble each one as an AW using the same parts. They take the first lower, assemble and document it, then take it apart. Put all those parts on the next lower... This let them create many legal pre-ban lowers for a lot less than the price of as many pre-ban guns.

You cannot just have the parts. If you just have the parts and can't prove it was an assault weapon before that date, it is not grandfathered. All you have is the means to produce an illegal gun. This is bad news and people were reportedly prosecuted for it.

But all this assumes that the next law will work the same as the last one.

User avatar
bookshop
* * * * *
Posts: 1027
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: NH/Maine Border
Contact:

Post by bookshop » Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:13 am

TAVOR? you can get Tavors in canada? I want a Tavor! They make semi- auto TAVORS???!?!!!!?!?

bullpup is sexy.
Vegan Gun Owners of America

Post Reply

Return to “General Firearms Discussion”