PDA

View Full Version : Theoretically, the impact of a new AWB...


grahlaika
05-01-2009, 7:01 PM
I'm just wondering, in the unlikely event a new national AWB will be put in place, what would that really mean to us here in CA? We already live with an AWB. Wouldn't it just mean the rest of the nation would have to live with similar restrictions like we have here? Will there be any impact on us here?

My apologies if this is another stupid question...

hawk1
05-01-2009, 7:03 PM
No one knows what or even if there will be a ban. Why speculate? It's a waste of time and energy.

Solidmch
05-01-2009, 7:34 PM
No one knows what or even if there will be a ban. Why speculate? It's a waste of time and energy.

two weeks :p

rabagley
05-01-2009, 7:47 PM
Economy, health care, GM, replacing Souter...

An AWB is not even on the radar for the next 6-12 months.

Don't relax, exactly, but don't keep your blood pressure up while you wait either. It's not good for your heart.

1BigPea
05-01-2009, 7:47 PM
Don't think about that, they'll hear you! :TFH:

rct442
05-01-2009, 7:52 PM
Oh not again, just use the search button Here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/search.php)

hawk1
05-01-2009, 9:02 PM
two weeks :p

I think in two weeks it'll be two weeks....:scooter:

grahlaika
05-01-2009, 9:02 PM
It wasn't a question about speculation, more a question of what it was like during the last AWB that expired a few years ago. I'm not trying to fuel any concerns, just wondering. I wasn't paying attention during the last AWB since I just assumed I couldn't own anything in CA.

wilshire1412
05-01-2009, 9:21 PM
It wasn't a question about speculation, more a question of what it was like during the last AWB that expired a few years ago. I'm not trying to fuel any concerns, just wondering. I wasn't paying attention during the last AWB since I just assumed I couldn't own anything in CA.

Well, you know all the stuff you can"t get right now because of the panic buying? That would become permanent and even if anyone would still be allowed to sell anything the prices would keep many from being able to buy.

During the last ban all the magazines that were made before the ban went into effect were grandfathered so that they were deemed to be legal to trade. This created a limited supply, and then the prices on the pre ban magazines started to rise every year until Glock pistol magazines in their standard capacity were $80 each or more. My statement does not consider any of the California AWB laws that went into effect in 2000, this was what happened nationally in 1994.

There is no way to know what might happen in the future, but those that want this stuff are not taking chances.

SKSer
05-02-2009, 12:49 PM
the OLL rule and harrot only applies to california due to a california ruling, on another note, I know the "two weeks" statement has to do with Nordyke but what exactly does it mean? If anything saves us from a new AWB it would be Nordyke. Right now im worried about AB962, the guy at the Walmart Sporting Goods counter said if it passes, Walmart will stop selling Ammo in cali, then we could say goodbye to decent priced ammo in cali.

Swatter911
05-02-2009, 1:15 PM
I think....87

the_quark
05-02-2009, 2:32 PM
the OLL rule and harrot only applies to california due to a california ruling, on another note, I know the "two weeks" statement has to do with Nordyke but what exactly does it mean? If anything saves us from a new AWB it would be Nordyke. Right now im worried about AB962, the guy at the Walmart Sporting Goods counter said if it passes, Walmart will stop selling Ammo in cali, then we could say goodbye to decent priced ammo in cali.

First, "two weeks" dates back far before Nordyke. It was originally how long it was going to take DOJ to add particular non-listed detached lowers to the list of "named" assault weapons (back when they had the power to do that), thus incurring a new registration period and enabling all of us who had purchased particular models to put whatever features we wanted on them. Since, it's been the running joke of how long anything will take. Most recently, it was almost how long it took from the Nordyke decision to file Peņa v. Cid.

Second, even if it passes (which I doubt), and, even if it's signed into law (which I doubt), I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps someone other than "the guy at the Walmart Sporting Goods counter" is going to be the person at Wal Mart to make the decision on their future policies.

TQ

SKSer
05-02-2009, 8:32 PM
First, "two weeks" dates back far before Nordyke. It was originally how long it was going to take DOJ to add particular non-listed detached lowers to the list of "named" assault weapons (back when they had the power to do that), thus incurring a new registration period and enabling all of us who had purchased particular models to put whatever features we wanted on them. Since, it's been the running joke of how long anything will take. Most recently, it was almost how long it took from the Nordyke decision to file Peņa v. Cid.

Second, even if it passes (which I doubt), and, even if it's signed into law (which I doubt), I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps someone other than "the guy at the Walmart Sporting Goods counter" is going to be the person at Wal Mart to make the decision on their future policies.

TQ

thanks for the info, Gary

Sinixstar
05-03-2009, 12:02 AM
the OLL rule and harrot only applies to california due to a california ruling, on another note, I know the "two weeks" statement has to do with Nordyke but what exactly does it mean? If anything saves us from a new AWB it would be Nordyke. Right now im worried about AB962, the guy at the Walmart Sporting Goods counter said if it passes, Walmart will stop selling Ammo in cali, then we could say goodbye to decent priced ammo in cali.

If anything would save us from another AWB - it would be Heller.
Given the number of AW's sold since the ban was lifted, and how common place they are to see in any gun store, range, or safe around the country - it would be very easy to argue that AWs like the AR-15 are in common use. It's even easier to make the argument for the AK - since if i'm not mistaken, it's the most common weapon in the world. Only reason I imagine it's not more common here, is it's banned for import because it's "scary".
The ruling in Heller was by the majority's own admission, not an exhaustive analysis of the 2nd. The reason being was that banning an entire class of weapons that are of common use was such a blatant violation of the 2nd - they didn't need to do much of an analysis to come to the conclusion they came to. Show evidence that AWs are common - and the same standard should arguably apply.

To take it one step further and apply it to things that are already existing - if you can ditch the handgun roster and show that requiring certain features on handguns (or lack thereof) is unconstitutional - then banning the scary features of AWs like detachable mags and pistol grips also becomes unconstitutional.

Even better, is that even if someone tried to pull the whole 'militia only' argument - that's fine. Look around the world. Anytime a scrappy rag-tag militia of civilians stands up to an oppressive regime, what are they most likely carrying? AKs.

While looking around the world (sometimes in pretty sketchy corners of the world) for legal standards may not be the greatest argument one could make - it does open the door for another interesting argument. Even 3rd world hellholes allow their citizens the right to protect themselves with the weapons that are designed for such a task. The only reason why citizens in the United States have not enjoyed a similar freedom, and the only reason why the united states does not also see such an extensive level of use of these weapons - is because of unconstitutional government interference. Even in some jungle hell hole on the other side of the world, citizens have the ability and the means to stand up to tyrannical oppression from the government, drug lords, or whoever else. Which is (not) coincidently the exact thing that Heller found the founding fathers to intend in including the 2nd in the Constitution.

cousinkix1953
05-03-2009, 12:11 AM
It could be even worse. Some of those anti-gun politicians want to ban the M-1 carbine, M-1A and the Ruger mini-14/30 too. They'll ban your Remington model 1100/1187 shotguns, if those two pro-abortion Roman Catholic infidels from Taxachusetts get their way...

Sinixstar
05-03-2009, 12:13 AM
It could be even worse. Some of those anti-gun politicians want to ban the M-1 carbine, M-1A and the Ruger mini-14/30 too. They'll ban your Remington model 1100/1187 shotguns, if those two pro-abortion Roman Catholic infidels from Taxachusetts get their way...

What does pro-abortion or religion have to do with anything at all?

cousinkix1953
05-03-2009, 3:28 AM
I guess you don't know the platforms of sens. Kerry and Kennedy. They're all the above...

tiki
05-03-2009, 6:45 AM
If anything would save us from another AWB - it would be Heller.
Given the number of AW's sold since the ban was lifted, and how common place they are to see in any gun store, range, or safe around the country - it would be very easy to argue that AWs like the AR-15 are in common use.


That depends on who you are making the argument to. I don't trust the Heller 4, and, we may see one or more of the Heller 5 being replaced in the near future, so i'm hoping that argument gets made soon.


Which is (not) coincidently the exact thing that Heller found the founding fathers to intend in including the 2nd in the Constitution.

Obama doesn't care about what the Constitution says. Its an outdated document to him and it has no place in the one world theory crap he is throwing around.

Roadrunner
05-03-2009, 7:18 AM
My take on a nationwide AWB is this. Should a politician get up the nerve to present a bill to enact a new one, and should one be put in place as a result of that new bill, it will be challenged because of Heller, and it will be overturned because the AWB will effectively ban weapons in common use. Should that happen, California's AWB will be easy pickin's because of Nordyke, if Gene and his band of merry men hasn't already killed the AWB here.

nicki
05-03-2009, 11:11 AM
If we kill the Cal AWB in the courts, we will kill a Fed AW ban.

We are the "leaders here". As long as we do our part and are for lack of a better term "intelligently aggressive" in pursuing cases, the Fed AWB won't happen.

The Nordyke case has got to be devastating for the "other side". I mean, think of it, the ULTRA LIBERAL 9th circuit voted with US and they did so in a way that ALAMEDA can't appeal.

Nicki

rabagley
05-03-2009, 11:32 AM
Actually, more important than denying Alameda the opportunity to appeal is that the decision gives Nordyke control over exactly what to appeal to SCOTUS and full control over how to frame it in the appeal.

The 9th Circuit ruling on Nordyke was a ridiculously generous ruling that makes me break out in a huge grin every time I think about it.

bluestaterebel
05-03-2009, 12:01 PM
If anything would save us from another AWB - it would be Heller.
Given the number of AW's sold since the ban was lifted, and how common place they are to see in any gun store, range, or safe around the country - it would be very easy to argue that AWs like the AR-15 are in common use. It's even easier to make the argument for the AK - since if i'm not mistaken, it's the most common weapon in the world. Only reason I imagine it's not more common here, is it's banned for import because it's "scary".
The ruling in Heller was by the majority's own admission, not an exhaustive analysis of the 2nd. The reason being was that banning an entire class of weapons that are of common use was such a blatant violation of the 2nd - they didn't need to do much of an analysis to come to the conclusion they came to. Show evidence that AWs are common - and the same standard should arguably apply.

To take it one step further and apply it to things that are already existing - if you can ditch the handgun roster and show that requiring certain features on handguns (or lack thereof) is unconstitutional - then banning the scary features of AWs like detachable mags and pistol grips also becomes unconstitutional.

Even better, is that even if someone tried to pull the whole 'militia only' argument - that's fine. Look around the world. Anytime a scrappy rag-tag militia of civilians stands up to an oppressive regime, what are they most likely carrying? AKs.

While looking around the world (sometimes in pretty sketchy corners of the world) for legal standards may not be the greatest argument one could make - it does open the door for another interesting argument. Even 3rd world hellholes allow their citizens the right to protect themselves with the weapons that are designed for such a task. The only reason why citizens in the United States have not enjoyed a similar freedom, and the only reason why the united states does not also see such an extensive level of use of these weapons - is because of unconstitutional government interference. Even in some jungle hell hole on the other side of the world, citizens have the ability and the means to stand up to tyrannical oppression from the government, drug lords, or whoever else. Which is (not) coincidently the exact thing that Heller found the founding fathers to intend in including the 2nd in the Constitution.

Okay, Lets get down to the nitty gritty. who is this Sinixstar?

youre view on guns and gun laws seem to fall in line with the rest of us. Yet you are a liberal Obama supporter. You have the right to support who ever you want obviously, but you can understand how the typical liberal does not have the same views about guns as you do.

The typical liberal supports gun bans, and believes the world would be a better place if only guns didnt exist.

Someone mentioned abortion and religion and you popped up to question what that anything to do with the topic. I was wondering the same thing. But i guess the poster just draws a correlation that pro abortion people are usually anti gun.

I was just wondering what other conservative vaules do you have?

Do you believe in a strong national defense?

Do you belive in lower taxes?

Do you believe in limited government?

Do you believe the Constitution is NOT a living document but rather a contract set forth by our fore fathers?

you dont have do answer any of these questions, i was just curios.