PDA

View Full Version : How many prosecutions under the 1994 Federal AW ban?


wilit
01-09-2011, 7:49 PM
Does anyone know how many prosecutions there were for people violating the Fed AW ban? I seem to recall reading something a couple of years ago saying that some ridiculously low number, like 6, were actually prosecuted. I can't find anything on-line to confirm nor deny that number. Anyone actually know the real number?

Window_Seat
01-09-2011, 7:51 PM
Hmmmm... good question, and this is something I wouldn't mind knowing about either.

Erik.

taperxz
01-09-2011, 7:57 PM
What i would also really like to know is how many crimes have been prosecuted where a RAW was used in the commission of a crime? (in CA)

wilit
01-12-2011, 7:09 PM
Bump. Anyone? Anyone know where I can maybe find the information? Would the Federal DOJ have stats on how many times charges were filed under that particular PC?

CCWFacts
01-12-2011, 7:40 PM
What i would also really like to know is how many crimes have been prosecuted where a RAW was used in the commission of a crime? (in CA)

I can imagine the answer to that would be...

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/zero.0.jpg

But I would also be interested if there have been any.

Librarian
01-12-2011, 7:41 PM
I seem to recall some preliminary data that came out about 1996, but I can't find it now.

Was a pretty small number, IIRC.

GOEX FFF
01-12-2011, 7:53 PM
It must be a very small number. It if were large it would be easy to find.

Cato
01-12-2011, 8:38 PM
..and the current California AWB?

wilit
01-12-2011, 8:51 PM
..and the current California AWB?

I would imagine that CA would have more prosecutions because it's basically an outright ban on possession of an unregistered AW. The Fed ban didn't require registration and was basically an evil features ban on new manufacture. Transfer of pre-ban firearms was still allowed under the Feds.

Kharn
01-13-2011, 2:41 AM
For most criminals it was an add-on charge bargained away to get a plea, but there were a handful of people caught (usually had a fight with their SO, SO called it in as "he's got a bunch of machine guns", ATF showed up and he has a telestock on a 1999 Bushmaster, etc) and charged for just AWB violations. I'd say less than a hundred.

Flintlock Tom
01-13-2011, 7:41 AM
It was my understanding the the 1994 AWB was only a ban on manufacture and import. If that is the case how could someone be charged, under that statute, for simply possessing one?

Noonanda
01-13-2011, 7:47 AM
the ban should have affected the 2 north hollywood bank robbers. oh wait they are dead, and they were already criminals for converting weapons to full auto, bank robbery, discharging a firearm within city limits, attempted murder, resisting arrest, assault with a deadly weapon. Lots of worse charges that they would have been guilty of, but the Federal ones would have been the ban and converting weapons to fire full auto

Kharn
01-13-2011, 8:50 AM
It was my understanding the the 1994 AWB was only a ban on manufacture and import. If that is the case how could someone be charged, under that statute, for simply possessing one?The 1994 AWB included possession.

Kreature96
01-13-2011, 8:58 AM
Bringing up the West Hollywood Bank Robbery reminds me, did they not use illegal drum magazines with a capacity over 100 and yet only they died. So the extended/large/huge capacity magazines do not actually kill?

Carnivore
01-13-2011, 10:29 AM
The 1994 AWB included possession.

But only if they were purchased after the ban. You could keep and have what you already owned just couldn't make or buy etc new ones.

For the Fed ban there were/was no person prosecuted for violations of the ban it's self. A few companies were raided for supposedly importing new weapons but nothing ever came of it. In California there has been 5 cases I know of personally for violation of the AW ban. It was just cases where people didn't register their weapons and were caught after the fact. None of them went to jail, they all pled out with probation and community service. The total number for Cali I don't have a clue.

I know one guy last year had 10 or so AWs in the back of his truck and was stopped at LAX picking up a friend. He was out of AZ and didn't "realize he couldn't bring the weapons into CA". I know he was arrested but didn't hear anything more about it.

stag1500
01-13-2011, 10:53 AM
The only thing I remember hearing was that several gun dealer were getting busted for selling post-ban hi-cap magazines to the public right before the ban officially expired.

bwiese
01-13-2011, 10:56 AM
I know at least 4 - 6 folks were prosecuted in 2004 for Fed AW violations resulting from displays at the Big Reno Show.

One of those specific individuals - on my prior visit to the show - had told me "Aw, the Feds ain't bustin' for that" when I pointed out some of the guns displayed had a flash hider and bayonet lug and were clearly not 'pre-ban' (due to mfgr on marked on receiver not being around before 1994).

bwiese
01-13-2011, 10:59 AM
I would imagine that CA would have more prosecutions because it's basically an outright ban on possession of an unregistered AW. The Fed ban didn't require registration and was basically an evil features ban on new manufacture. Transfer of pre-ban firearms was still allowed under the Feds.

The legislative analysis for AB88 a few years ago (enhancements for possession of multiple AWs) mentioned that there were somewhere around 60? (it was some midrange 2 digit number) prosecutions.

It's really hard to tell, though - somebody popped for multiple violations (of any type) and an AW violation may end up pleading out to some or all, but the data will reflect the lead charge. DA offices are notoriously disorganized and their data systems are very poor - you can't just go search for a charge and "up comes everybody so charged", esp if that charge is secondary or tacked on later. It's a real pig's breakfast of data organization.

Lrchops
01-13-2011, 11:22 AM
The feds would say there have been few to zero prosecutions because thier law works!!!!