PDA

View Full Version : Expired Federal Assault Weapon Law


Headly Jones
01-11-2011, 4:57 PM
I didnt know much about the law that expired in 2004 but people I am talking with keep bringing it up. From what I have heard that law "banned" hi cap magazines.
Can someone tell me what the law actually said ?
I know here in California that posession of hi caps arent prohibited so did the old federal law have similiar language ?

the_quark
01-11-2011, 5:04 PM
The Federal law from a magazine perspective just banned manufacture (except for law enforcement and military use). So, you could still buy, sell, trade, possess, etc., it's just they were more expensive.

Kharn
01-11-2011, 5:05 PM
The federal law stated that magazines made after 13 Sept 1994 were to be marked 'For law enforcement or military only', mags without that marker or without post-94 date codes were considered preban and were legal to own. The law expired on 13 Sept 2004.

emcon5
01-11-2011, 5:06 PM
The only "ban" was you couldn't buy new ones. Magazines that existed before the ban were still legal to buy, sell and own. Ones made after the ban were marked "Law enforcement only". In other words, it created a lucrative, completely legal market in pre-ban magazines.

IIRC the AW ban itself was similar to what we have in California for detachable magazine semi-auto rifles, except that you were allowed one evil feature (Pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash hider, folding stock, etc), where CA can have none.

Jaxpire
01-11-2011, 5:06 PM
Basically it was a ban on manufacture of new hi-cap. You could sell, keep and transfer hi-caps that were manufactured before the date of the ban. This included the millions if not billions of hi-cap mags that were available before the ban date.

I can’t remember if there was an import ban at the same time.

Kharn
01-11-2011, 5:11 PM
There was not an import ban, as long as the mags did not have an obviously post-94 date code. For some reason, there were always combloc mags to be had that did not bear date codes. :p

the_quark
01-11-2011, 5:12 PM
IIRC the AW ban itself was similar to what we have in California for detachable magazine semi-auto rifles, except that you were allowed one evil feature (Pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash hider, folding stock, etc), where CA can have none.

It was also a manufacturing ban (so you could still buy and sell old ones).

And, you're double-counting. It was two features in the Federal ban, including pistol grips. So you replaced your "flash supressor" with a "muzzle brake" and you were good to go, as long as you had a fixed stock.

Here we're allowed zero evil features, but not counting a pistol grip as an evil feature.

Jaxpire
01-11-2011, 5:13 PM
Not really true. If you owned them before the CA ban in 2000, you can rebuild them with new parts.

Jaxpire
01-11-2011, 5:13 PM
Man you guys are fast.

Dr Rockso
01-11-2011, 5:34 PM
It was also a manufacturing ban (so you could still buy and sell old ones).

And, you're double-counting. It was two features in the Federal ban, including pistol grips. So you replaced your "flash supressor" with a "muzzle brake" and you were good to go, as long as you had a fixed stock.

Here we're allowed zero evil features, but not counting a pistol grip as an evil feature.

Too lazy to look it up, but I think threaded barrels were a feature per the Fed AWB. Most post-ban style rifles didn't have any sort of muzzle device.

Kharn
01-11-2011, 5:50 PM
You could weld or pin the muzzle brake to the barrel to bypass the law. A threaded barrel or flash hider was one feature, a grenade launcher was another. The NATO standard rifle grenade can launch from a 22mm diameter muzzle device. IIRC muzzle brakes had to be <20mm or >24mm to not count as a launcher.

Steve_338LM
01-11-2011, 5:55 PM
So technically a person cannot have a regular capacity mag if it has been made after Sept 1994, here in CA.

Legally there was no manufacturing of regular mags for civilians from 1994 to 2004, and the CA ban took effect in 2000.

Regular capacity magazines were widely available in California just prior to 2000. I purchased several firearms (both handguns and rifles) between 1994 and 2000 that included magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.

Possessing a magazine (>10 round) that was not designed or manufactured prior to 2000 could be problematic in California.

Sniper3142
01-11-2011, 7:15 PM
So technically a person cannot have a regular capacity mag if it has been made after Sept 1994, here in CA.

Legally there was no manufacturing of regular mags for civilians from 1994 to 2004, and the CA ban took effect in 2000.

Wrong

Folks could and did legally purchase 10+ magazines during the ban.

They just couldn't purchase High Capacity mags made after the ban date. Such magazines made after the ban date had to be marked "For Law Enforcement & Military Use Only". As stated, there were millions if not Billions of High Cap mags already in existance at the time of the ban. These magazines were able to be purchased even in this @#$! up state during the Federal Ban.

LAWABIDINGCITIZEN
01-11-2011, 7:29 PM
The media loves to talk about how great this law was as if it actually accomplished something. When it comes up in discussion, here's what people need to learn:

-Every gun allegedly banned was still legal to own.

-Every gun allegedly banned was still legal to buy.

-More of the guns allegedly banned were manufactured (with a name change or a cosmetic change) while the so called ban was in place than before the law was enacted.

-All of the magazines allegedly banned were still available for sale, and millions upon millions of them were legally owned during the time the so called ban was in place.


The '94 law sold more guns than any marketing campaign by manufacturer's could have ever accomplished.


When someone says this law reduced crime, ask them how? There was NOTHING in the law that could reduce crime or stop criminals from getting a gun.

Nothing.

Funny, we don't hear much of this on TV.

Read the text of the '94 Federal law carefully from beginning to end and the above facts will be clear.

Apocalypsenerd
01-11-2011, 9:01 PM
I believe there was a Stanford (Yale maybe??) study on the effects of the Clinton AWB. There was no statistical evidence to suggest that the AWB stopped crime.

the_quark
01-11-2011, 9:03 PM
Too lazy to look it up, but I think threaded barrels were a feature per the Fed AWB. Most post-ban style rifles didn't have any sort of muzzle device.

You are correct, now that I think about it. Wasn't quite as versed in the law back in those days. :)

I'm sure if we had that nowadays we'd be welding muzzle brakes on though, because straight-barreled ARs look dorky (IMHO).

Headly Jones
01-11-2011, 10:53 PM
Okay so when the media says the expiration of the ban allowed high caps that's not really true. People still had them during the ban

rkt88edmo
01-11-2011, 11:12 PM
Okay so when the media says the expiration of the ban allowed high caps that's not really true. People still had them during the ban

That is correct, all it did was make the price of "pre-ban" full capacity magazines that cost $10 bulk at the time go up to $25-$30.

Mssr. Eleganté
01-12-2011, 12:09 AM
Wrong

Folks could and did legally purchase 10+ magazines during the ban.

They just couldn't purchase High Capacity mags made after the ban date.

You realize that you just told the guy he was wrong, and then repeated exactly what he said. :p

CalNRA
01-12-2011, 12:45 AM
You realize that you just told the guy he was wrong, and then repeated exactly what he said. :p

:rofl:

I noticed that too...

Sniper3142
01-12-2011, 8:23 AM
You realize that you just told the guy he was wrong, and then repeated exactly what he said. :p

DOH!!!

http://www.andyrainey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/simpsons-the-doh-4900579.jpg

Decoligny
01-12-2011, 8:29 AM
The only "ban" was you couldn't buy new ones. Magazines that existed before the ban were still legal to buy, sell and own. Ones made after the ban were marked "Law enforcement only". In other words, it created a lucrative, completely legal market in pre-ban magazines.

IIRC the AW ban itself was similar to what we have in California for detachable magazine semi-auto rifles, except that you were allowed one evil feature (Pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash hider, folding stock, etc), where CA can have none.

Not 100% accurate, but it just may be semantics.

If a gun store had a large stock of hi-caps in their warehouse that were manufactured before the ban, they were perfectly legal to keep being sold as "brand new" even after the ban took effect. The ban specifically dealt with "manufacuter" after a specific date, so no hi-cap mags could be made once the ban actually took effect.

Oh yeah, in California there is nothing in the AW laws about Bayonet Lugs.