What happens if a new federal assault weapons ban is passed?

[SubSolar]

With the likelihood of Obama getting in office and a filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress, it seems likely that a new assault weapons ban will be passed. What happens in this event? Will we have to register our rifles with the California and federal governments in order to prove in the future that we bought one before the new ban? If so, is it likely that California will approve our bullet buttons? I'm looking to buy some rifles with bullet buttons before the ban but don't want to invest all the money if it's unlikely it will be approved for registration when there is a new ban.

[stphnman20]

Search "AWB"

[Ding126]

My crystal ball is in the shop for repairs. But if I had to guess, I would think they might make an AWB like we haven't seen in the past or It could be the same as the last...your guess is as good as the next persons. Time will tell..........

[stphnman20]

Yeah there isn't anything set in stone yet.. you never know what the ban will consist of..

[AngelDecoys]

IF, and that's a big IF an AW ban passed, it would head to the courts immediately. Given the wording in Heller, those days of banning (common arms) are numbered.

[CCWFacts]

It's not going to happen!

[djandj]

Guys - I have said it before and I will say it again. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE FEDS DO REGARDING AW'S We in CA have been banned for 20 years!! They can't possibly do more than CA already has. Even if the Feds ban everything by name, type and configuration, CA has already banned it and furthermore made it impossible to even pass such weapons on to our children! Constitutionally, they can't take what we already have (Takings clause) without paying for it (think billions of dollars), so even if they ban everything and forbid the MFG and import of all the good stuff, CA is already 20 years ahead of them.

Stop worrying about the Feds, CA is the true danger. (Microstamping, handgun approved list, ammunition restrictions etc.)

[AJAX22]

The next AWB (they will definitly TRY... how successfull they will be is open to debate) Will try to ban all semi autos or all 'armor piercing' or 'unusualy destructive' guns.

[rod]

I don't see an outright ban on guns happening. What I think could happen is a ban on semi auto firearms and a ban on all calibers that the military uses. Such a ban wouldn't happen overnight though and you'd have plenty of time to stock up.

[Hopi]

With the likelihood of Obama getting in office and a filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress, it seems likely that a new assault weapons ban will be passed.
I doubt any real danger will have legs, but there might be some rumblings and stillborn bills...

What happens in this event? How can you speculate on a context that has yet to be written? Who knows, if one is written at all, what language a new AWB will contain.

Will we have to register our rifles with the California and federal governments in order to prove in the future that we bought one before the new ban? Again, nobody knows what an unwritten bill says. Registration was not part of the previous Federal AWB.

If so, is it likely that California will approve our bullet buttons? No, no chance.

I'm looking to buy some rifles with bullet buttons before the ban but don't want to invest all the money if it's unlikely it will be approved for registration when there is a new ban. Buy all that you want, generally, previous bans have included 'grandfather clauses'.....even so, a new federal ban is very unlikely within the post-Heller world...shoot, even CA's AWB will soon fall

[thedrickel]

All your base will belong to us.

[jamesob]

the u.s will then be called kalifornia.

[dfletcher]

1) I think the Dems would attempt to include Mini 14s, M1 carbines, M1As and
such as assault weapons.
2) I think some out of state folks who took shots at us in California (move to
a free state, vote the bums out, tough luck for you) will knock on a door
or two asking how to get around certain federal restrictions - tap our legal
creativity so to speak.

[djandj]

The next AWB (they will definitly TRY... how successfull they will be is open to debate) Will try to ban all semi autos or all 'armor piercing' or 'unusualy destructive' guns.



Wake up! When is the last time you dropped by your local CA Wal Mart and picked up a nice box of armor piercing ammo - maybe some tracer ammo? We already can't have that stuff. As for semi autos - we already can't get many of the new semi automatics (HK45, certain Glocks and Sigs) all 10+ round mags. The feds can NEVER pass a bill worse than CA. Look to our own house, never mind the Feds.

[AJAX22]

I could write a bill that would be worse than the one we have in CA, it would be quite easy.

Over the last 10 years we've seen what language allows for loopholes and what restrictions are actually the most painfull and limiting.

If someone who actually understood the subject wrote the bill you'd figure out how good you've got it in a hurry.

And I can buy all kinds of armor piercing ammo at walmart, if you think a standard vest will hold up to a FMJ .30-06 you're deluding yourself.

As long as our missery is limited to the boraders of CA we don't have it REALLY bad, we can still leave and be free americans somewhere else.

If it happens at a federal level, we can't leave and still be americans.

Wake up! When is the last time you dropped by your local CA Wal Mart and picked up a nice box of armor piercing ammo - maybe some tracer ammo? We already can't have that stuff. As for semi autos - we already can't get many of the new semi automatics (HK45, certain Glocks and Sigs) all 10+ round mags. The feds can NEVER pass a bill worse than CA. Look to our own house, never mind the Feds.

[AJAX22]

I could write a bill that would be worse than the one we have in CA, it would be quite easy.

Over the last 10 years we've seen what language allows for loopholes and what restrictions are actually the most painfull and limiting.

If someone who actually understood the subject wrote the bill you'd figure out how good you've got it in a hurry.

And I can buy all kinds of armor piercing ammo at walmart, if you think a standard vest will hold up to a FMJ .30-06 you're deluding yourself.

As long as our missery is limited to the boraders of CA we don't have it REALLY bad, we can still leave and be free americans somewhere else.

If it happens at a federal level, we can't leave and still be americans.

Wake up! When is the last time you dropped by your local CA Wal Mart and picked up a nice box of armor piercing ammo - maybe some tracer ammo? We already can't have that stuff. As for semi autos - we already can't get many of the new semi automatics (HK45, certain Glocks and Sigs) all 10+ round mags. The feds can NEVER pass a bill worse than CA. Look to our own house, never mind the Feds.

[f-ponce]

here it is HR 1022. this is what the dems are thinking.


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

[Two Shots]

I'd be more worried that the power in charged will say that all Military type rifles are non-sporting and we don't need them. No Military calibers allowed in Kali. i can see some sleazy politician trying this and then having this voted on by the public. Guess which way the vote will go. As others say I wouldn't worry about the Feds.

[bohoki]

i personally welcome such a "law" as it could be immediatly challenged and the precident could be used to fight all the patchwork of state laws

[sigsauer887]

Ok folks this has to stop. We only know of HR1022 which is basically a added version of our last one, and it was introduced in 2007 we are now heading into 2009. The last AWB didn't take that long to pass the house and get signed by the president (clinton).

But think about this one. It's all about regulation. How can they regulate High capacity magazines if a lot already are marker "For law enforcement Only"? How can they regulate Assault weapons if some are marked "For law enforcement only" ? It's going to be tough.

On another note, they have one key court issue and so do we. For them they have WOE V. Wade for us D.C. v. Heller . One will not sacrifice if they have to sacrifice themselves.

The best thing to do right now is not listen to your local FFL who says "THERE BEING BANNED IN TWO WEEEKSSS!!!!111!!one!!"

Take care.

[sigsauer887]

Ok folks this has to stop. We only know of HR1022 which is basically a added version of our last one, and it was introduced in 2007 we are now heading into 2009. The last AWB didn't take that long to pass the house and get signed by the president (clinton).

But think about this one. It's all about regulation. How can they regulate High capacity magazines if a lot already are marker "For law enforcement Only"? How can they regulate Assault weapons if some are marked "For law enforcement only" ? It's going to be tough.

On another note, they have one key court issue and so do we. For them they have WOE V. Wade for us D.C. v. Heller . One will not sacrifice if they have to sacrifice themselves.

The best thing to do right now is not listen to your local FFL who says "THERE BEING BANNED IN TWO WEEEKSSS!!!!111!!one!!" Their only manipulating you.

Take care.

[rayra]

massive civil disobedience, that's what'll happen, just as with the 1989 CA ban where the majority of CA "assault rifle" owners refused to register.

[rayra]

massive civil disobedience, that's what'll happen, just as with the 1989 CA ban where the majority of CA "assault rifle" owners refused to register.

[bohoki]

But think about this one. It's all about regulation. How can they regulate High capacity magazines if a lot already are marker "For law enforcement Only"? How can they regulate Assault weapons if some are marked "For law enforcement only" ? It's going to be tough.



Take care.

not really they will just require a date on "controlled substances" and have things marked with the date after the ban passes be banned

[dfletcher]

Did you listen to the debate last night when Obama and McCain were asked about the strengths of their Vice Presidential running mates? Obama specifically pointed out the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill written & sponsored by Senator Joe Biden. Of course we know it as the AW ban. Obama mentioning it in a positive manner in a national debate I think ensures he's going to push it AND if questioned about his "I won't take your guns" rehetoric will respond with "Hey, I told you in Oct '08 I though the '94 one was great - what's not to understand?"

[jamesob]

Ok folks this has to stop. We only know of HR1022 which is basically a added version of our last one, and it was introduced in 2007 we are now heading into 2009. The last AWB didn't take that long to pass the house and get signed by the president (clinton).

But think about this one. It's all about regulation. How can they regulate High capacity magazines if a lot already are marker "For law enforcement Only"? How can they regulate Assault weapons if some are marked "For law enforcement only" ? It's going to be tough.

On another note, they have one key court issue and so do we. For them they have WOE V. Wade for us D.C. v. Heller . One will not sacrifice if they have to sacrifice themselves.

The best thing to do right now is not listen to your local FFL who says "THERE BEING BANNED IN TWO WEEEKSSS!!!!111!!one!!" Their only manipulating you.

Take care.
as for the markings thats not an issue, they can have a new marking such as "not for civilian use".

[Rob Roy]

The best thing to do right now is not listen to your local FFL who says "THERE BEING BANNED IN TWO WEEEKSSS!!!!111!!one!!" Their only manipulating you.



Why not? Why do you think HR1022 cannot move fast after elections?

[M. Sage]

They can't possibly do more than CA already has.)

The last AWB bill I read last year (1022, McCarthy) went far above and beyond. It even banned M1 Carbines.

[bohoki]

as for the markings thats not an issue, they can have a new marking such as "not for civilian use".

haa make it a "felony just to touch the item and make sure it takes fingerprints"

then just have cops running around saying "hey you catch"

as to the m1 carbines its hard to not imagine them as an assault weapon as many were actually used during a war

[jamesob]

haa make it a "felony just to touch the item and make sure it takes fingerprints"

then just have cops running around saying "hey you catch"

as to the m1 carbines its hard to not imagine them as an assault weapon as many were actually used during a war

they will try and pass a ban on any military style firearms. that would incude m1 carbines,garands , m14's, springfield 03 and any other firearm since they were all military firearms, get the picture.

[djandj]

they will try and pass a ban on any military style firearms. that would incude m1 carbines,garands , m14's, springfield 03 and any other firearm since they were all military firearms, get the picture.

Just how are they going to do that? CA tried by name (that failed- duh! clone guns & OLL) Then they also tried by features (just how will you distinguish a mini 14 or M-1 from every other "hunting" rifle out there? Stop fear mongering! Even the very blue state of CA couldn't get everything banned. the Feds (with Senetors from AK, MT MS UT etc.) will Never get more stringent than CA. Let's focus on our state.

[Hopi]

Just how are they going to do that? CA tried by name (that failed- duh! clone guns & OLL) Then they also tried by features (just how will you distinguish a mini 14 or M-1 from every other "hunting" rifle out there? Stop fear mongering! Even the very blue state of CA couldn't get everything banned. the Feds (with Senetors from AK, MT MS UT etc.) will Never get more stringent than CA. Let's focus on our state.

It's ok, sometimes I don't read the whole thread before responding too....

This is from 2007 and was posted above.

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

That's how they would do it.

One of the gems....
A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

[javalos]

What happens is it all depends how the legislation is crafted, rarely are they passed in its original state, usually there are provisions and amendments that are attached to it.

[motorhead]

repeat after me,"what guns"? look as vacuous as possible.

[jamesob]

Just how are they going to do that? CA tried by name (that failed- duh! clone guns & OLL) Then they also tried by features (just how will you distinguish a mini 14 or M-1 from every other "hunting" rifle out there? Stop fear mongering! Even the very blue state of CA couldn't get everything banned. the Feds (with Senetors from AK, MT MS UT etc.) will Never get more stringent than CA. Let's focus on our state.
dude, did you read my post ? i said they would TRY not that they would.

[hoffmang]

Reading these old bills that had no chance of passage at all is useless. Our side spent 0 time on them because they were not going anywhere. As such, the other side throws a bunch of stuff in them they know they can never get so that it can be negotiated out. Never start a negotiation where you're trying to end up.

However all the fear shown in this thread misses the fact that we are very likely to keep a pro-gun majority in the house even if the Democrats control. The Democrat house majority is kept by dems from pro-gun districts. They are survivalist enough (and accountable enough) to realize they'll be voted out if they go back to their pro-gun districts having voted for an AW ban.

-Gene

[sigsauer887]

Reading these old bills that had no chance of passage at all is useless. Our side spent 0 time on them because they were not going anywhere. As such, the other side throws a bunch of stuff in them they know they can never get so that it can be negotiated out. Never start a negotiation where you're trying to end up.

However all the fear shown in this thread misses the fact that we are very likely to keep a pro-gun majority in the house even if the Democrats control. The Democrat house majority is kept by dems from pro-gun districts. They are survivalist enough (and accountable enough) to realize they'll be voted out if they go back to their pro-gun districts having voted for an AW ban.

-Gene

Exactly, thanks for making my point gene, I couldn't have stated it better myself.

[PIRATE14]

Politicians are politicians.....if the DEMS win the presidency they'll feel that they have a mandate to come up with a AW ban of some sort....it's in the party platform......

Dems will vote with the DEMS....80-90 percent of the time.....

Now we have some momentum w/ Heller but that'll evaporate w/ a DEM PRES - HOUSE and SENATE....

SO VOTE.....

PRO GUN doesn't mean PRO AR SEMI-AUTOMATIC-BETA C MAG - the shotgunners and bolters have sold the semi-autos down the river on more than one occassion....

Not fear.....just a history lesson....

[hoffmang]

Politicians are politicians.....if the DEMS win the presidency they'll feel that they have a mandate to come up with a AW ban of some sort....it's in the party platform......

Dems will vote with the DEMS....80-90 percent of the time.....

So how do you explain this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423962,00.html)?


Now we have some momentum w/ Heller but that'll evaporate w/ a DEM PRES - HOUSE and SENATE....

SO VOTE.....
But I certainly agree with this.

[PIRATE14]

So how do you explain this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423962,00.html)?



Nothing to explain......everyone likes the SECOND AMENDMENT....even OBAMA.....

[tombinghamthegreat]

massive civil disobedience, that's what'll happen, just as with the 1989 CA ban where the majority of CA "assault rifle" owners refused to register.

I was thinking along those lines but it could lead to more violence if they approve the McCarthy version.

The last AWB bill I read last year (1022, McCarthy) went far above and beyond. It even banned M1 Carbines.

I heard it even went as far as banning 10/22 rugers, bolt action rifles, and 1911 handguns. Also something about giving states the power to ban any type of gun that was non-sporting use. Kinda scary because the bill bans nearly every type of gun without the states involved.

[hoffmang]

Nothing to explain......everyone likes the SECOND AMENDMENT....even OBAMA.....

That is ducking the issue, just like Obama.

-Gene

[motorhead]

obama has made noises suggesting he'd push for some form of awb. (invoking the deamon kalashnikov)

[PIRATE14]

That is ducking the issue, just like Obama.

-Gene

I fail to see the ducking......it's an article that states a DEM supports the second amendment and giving people their gun rights.....

Are there PROGUN DEMS....yes but so what.....they are politicians and They will sell you out w/ your AR or AK so they can they can spare a semi-auto shotgun.....

As you've mentioned the previous bills went about banning everything and they'll wheel and deal.....and you'll lose something.....

[GripItRight]

:confused: This gentleman is making some good calls and I just wanted to help get his post into the right thread:
...the section of HR1022 you should all read before voting in November knowing that this will become law under Obama and a majority Dem COngress. Ready?

(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
(they name a crapload of rifles by manufacturer) THEN

`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(K) A conversion kit.
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

The Attorney General under Barack will probably be Chuck Shumer or Hillary.