[caver101]

So what is going to be the outcome if the “A.W.B.” is not renewed? Can I get my dealer to put 4 L.E.O. Colt AR’s on order? Will the price of my pre-ban stuff go down? I am sure at some point the existing ban (or a new ban) will be put in place. It will probably be after the election I guess. Lets just hope that J. Kerry is not the one responsible for re-writing the ban after the election.
I have looked around the www and not really found any useful info. You guys know anything about the 11 September 04 deadline??? What will happen..........

 

[Shoe]

I remember reading an article this morning where the senate majority leader, Tom Daschel (sp?) said specifically that the ban would expire in a few days as there weren't enough "for" votes in congress to renew it. I think the article was on CNN.com, but now that I'm looking for it, I can't find it - isn't that always the case...

Also in related gun news, Bushmaster Arms has settled with 8 plaintiffs for $550k that filed suit against the gunmaker following the DC area shootings a few years ago. In the same suit, the dealer who sold the gun to Malvo settled with the plaintiffs for $2 mil. Article also on CNN.com

EDIT: Found the links! Look at their names and read appropriately...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/assault.weapons.ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/09/sniper.families.lawsuit.ap/index.html

 

[caver101]

Thanks Shoe.

So I wander what that will mean to the everyday civilian?

I guess that with the end of the ban everything is a go!?!? (I really like those little collapsible stocks!!) Could I put a LEO collapsible stock on my post ban AR??

After the 11th will there even be a “LEO” type firearm?

Who would one contact to get the details of what will happen? (I don’t expect it to last for ever, stock up now!)

 

[Shoe]

that's a question for people more knowledgable in the field then I. perhaps Mel would enlighten us on this matter....

 

[subThermal]

The question should be, what do you need an automatic rifle for? Hunting Deer? I think it is stupid to let civilians own automatic weapons, they have no need for them at all. There is no good argument supporting it.

Just because I would like to drive Apache to work does not mean I should be able to buy one.

 

[Jeff_850]

Carver:
the Assault waepons ban has NOTHING to do with fully automatic weapons
it bans semi-automatics with the following:
pistol grips, beyonet mounts, collapsable stocks, flash hiders and detachable magazines, also the limit to 10 round clips will be no more

yes there would be a law enforcement model
it would be select fire
then you would have an identical semi-auto civilain model only and wouldnt be able to get the law enformcent model unless your state allows you to puchace a fully auto weapon

congress is in session this week i think... been a lil busy to check
and i think there in session today/tommarrow but i could be wrong
the ban would expire September 13th if not renewed
im not sure if will expire on the 13th or you will have to wait till midnight (14th)

 

[muzzleblast]

Well said, Jeff.

As I understand it, to fall under the ban a rifle has to meet 3 or more of the criteria you mentioned. I could be wrong about that.

So if something made me want to put a pistol grip and a bayonet onto a Browning BAR...Uh oh! Assualt weapon! Crime gun! Why would I need such a super "Rambo gun" to hunt deer?

it's silly. But the average person hears some twisted form of "assault weapons are legal again!" and thinks of people running around with all kinds of machine guns. This ain't 1920 where you can buy a tommy gun at the hardware store as long as you're old enough, and not much is gonna change.

 

[Jeff_850]

Muzzleblast: sry i forgot to mention its 2 of the 'military' features on a semi-auto w/ a detachable box mag

im not gonna get into the arguement of fully auto weapons

but the assault weapons ban is simply useless since what it bans is all cosmetic anyway

 

[caver101]

Shoe, you and I are in the same boat. Hey MELE………what is your interpretation??

Sub Thermal,
I said nothing about automatic weapons?? If I am not mistaken they are covered under other laws and regulations (class 3 firearms under the ATF??). The AWB that I am referring to is the one good old clinton put in place in ’94. You know the ornamental stuff…..no mags over 10 rnds, no flash suppressors, collapsible stocks and that the like…..I have a pre-ban AR with the 16” barrel and collapsible stock and I do hunt with it. It has taken more deer than any gun I have. Yea I know a .223 is small for white tail, but you just have to know where to put it, only lost 1 deer in 12 years with it! It is great to carry in the woods on those 8 or 10 mile trips, supper light.

Now the thing about civilians and auto weapons………..there is no reason that I can not own any weapons that the Police or any state agency can own (I am a clean, law abiding citizen). I agree that there needs to be good enforceable regulations, is the ATF not doing its job now (you decide)? You could take this discussion both ways. Example- (non gun owner) – they could easily say that all guns should be banned, manly because they have no desire to own one or have ever been around one, they probably have never even shot one, just think what someone tells them to think. If I say that I think trucks should be banned from the highway unless they are pulling or hauling something to save gas or cut down on people getting hurt in accidents involving little bitty cars and big trucks, that would make quite a few folks mad. If I choose to drive a little bitty car then by buying the little bitty car I am accepting the risk. (not my view, just one I heard one time, I own and drive my truck every day). Same thing with full auto weapons, I have no desire to own one (could not afford the ammo) but if someone wants to buy one (legally) I have no problem with it. More power to them. They have machinegun shoots all over the country.

I have no problem with someone owning an Apache, once all of the paperwork is done the government will know every single thing there is to know about them (if they are doing their job correctly). If they do not through up a red flag and they have the cash why not? Without all the missiles on it it is just a helicopter, right??

We could debate this both ways and still not accomplish anything so I will just drop it, besides it is off topic from my original question. If you want to discuss this further open up a new thread so everyone can get in on it. No hard feelings, friend.

 

[caver101]

Thanks guys for all of the good info on the AWB. I already know that stuff. Just the ornamental stuff.

Good point about the select fire, had not thought about that one.

Just want to know what happens next week.

I care nothing about full auto anyway, but thanks anyway.

 

[Jeff_850]

well about the Apache
if you have $10 million or whatever they will cost, go to Boeing, if they were willing to sell you one without all the classified avionics, without the missiles, without the gatling gun
its just a high performance unarmed helicopter
you wan to pay for it sounds fine with me
a heavily armed helicopter with rockets, missiles and guns should of course be a nono though thats hte last thing we need to see hicks and pajamma commandoes with when they win the lotto

suppose a fully auto would make a good plinker
a fully auto M-16 costs $12,000 here and id never waste that kind of money for one unless i won the lotto
im more afraid of the person who knows how to use the bolt action .22 LR than i am with the idiot who has an M-16

 

[Scatch Maroo]

now then flying an armed helicopter with gatling guns and missiles i think shoudl be a no no of course

I've known some pre-law kids who argued that the second amendment guarantees them the ability to maintain a militia capable of succeeding from the federal government, i.e., ANY thing the U.S. military has, people should be able to have. There point was not that people need or should have such things, but that if you want to maintain a militia, rivaling technology would be justified. Just something to consider, I suppose.

suppose a fully auto would make a good plinker
a fully auto M-16 costs $12,000 here and id never waste that kind of money for one unless i won the lotto
im more afraid of the person who knows how to use the bolt action .22 LR than i am with the idiot who has an M-16

I thought automatic conversion kits for many weapons were easily obtainable; is this not so for the AR15?

Scatch Maroo

 

[Jeff_850]

well should we have B-2 bombers?
should we have cruise missiles?
nukes?
no i dont think so

and dont think that you get enough people together youd be able to overthrow the governemnt, set up a new government and things would be better
if you did manage to overthrow the governemnt i can guarentee you things would end up a hell of a lot worse than they are now...

machine guns... wouldnt be a bad plinker
not saying anything about they should be legal
last murder with a registered machine gun was in the 30s... 2 of them in history by the police i think
not so sure there is that much of a danger of citiziens being allowed to own them
only reason they should be legal if you have a class III is cause the governemnt would go restricting crazy
maybe not ban all guns or start collecting them but just makin it difficult for gunowners

if someone wanted to get a machine gun for evil purposes they woudlnt care if it was legal or illegal since they are gonna use it for illegal means and i think its gonna be easier to get them illegally than it would be legally

conversion kits like that are illegal
but an AR-15 could easily be converted to fully auto... the old ones you could just use a file and the new ones you can just replace the trigger? or maybe get a few other M-16 parts to make it shoot on fully auto
this not only makes your rifle fully auto it makes you a felon

 

[subThermal]

The question should be, what do you need an automatic rifle for?

I'm sorry, I thought that you ordered the automatic version of the rifle, or wanted to. I was not talking about the laws.

 

[caver101]

I have to agree with that statement that "Scatch Maroo" made. We should be able to have the same tech. as the gov. (I have to desire to own a nuke, ect......)

I agree with Jeff_850, I am more afraid of the peckers with a old rusty .38 snub nose or a .22lr, not the class three guys. Wish there were more of the class three guys! Safty in numbers :lol:

All I was wanting to know was - Can I put a PRE ban collapsable stock on my POST ban AR's? Or where can I get the correct info. Looked at the ATF website with no luck. Sorry to start the full auto - nuke - tank debate.

 

[Jeff_850]

lol
well you CAN put a collapsable stock on when the ban sunsets i dont know if its September 13th or you might need to wait till the 14th to put the stuff on
id just wait till tuesday (the 14th) to be safe but thats just me
not sure im gonna even modify my AR-15 like i thought i was... its gonna be a while

i guess the safest way to find out would be to ask the ATF
give em a call

 

[caver101]

found a good link ya'll may wat to read about Armalite - they are ready to start selling preban kits.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beac ... eapons.htm

 

[FLEA]

!

Keep in mind if you are in California you are still screwed.

"California in 1989 became the first state to ban these military-type assault weapons. Our law, which is stronger than its federal counterpart, will remain firmly in place" Attorney General Lockyer

Plus January 1st 2005 the 50BMG ban goes into effect for California so nows the time to sell a car or refinance your house and guy at least the action before you can't anymore.

 

[Shoe]

Wow...wasn't expecting that minor flamewar. I think I'm going to sidestep it a bit.

However, Scatch's comment has me interested. The second amendment specifically reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As is the case with most of the constitution, it's vagueness lends itself strongly to interpretation. The current powers that be interpret this to mean "the average citizen cannot possess military grade weapons," but there are other interpretations out there, from "people don't need anything larger then .22 LR bolt action rifles" to "people a need machine gun in every closet and a tank in every garage."

In the end it all comes down to politics, which I once heard defined as "the fight to determine what is, what's right, and what works." Seems that right now, the pendulum has swung the other way and it's once again right for people to own assault style firearms.

 

[subThermal]

At the time the consitution was written, the militia was not the same as the Army. Thus it does not get the same perks, cannon, calvarly, etc. It was city and state run.

Just because someone is a "law abiding citizen" and has class 3 firearms does not mean they will remain "law abiding citizens."

So no, there is no valid reason for a person to own an assault rifle, even if they "want one." I may want to study BrainPox but I wouldn't be able to buy it from Uncle Sam's bio-storage. And that is a good thing.

That is why I like the current 2nd amendment, it is so open ended, they can do almost anything with it, as long as they dont ban long rifles, I'm fine.