PDA

View Full Version : Assault Weapon Ban


choprzrul
02-14-2012, 8:26 PM
Hypothetically...

If the assault weapon ban were to be re-authorized in a manner unchanged from its former state, would home manufacture of 80% lowers for personal use be allowed?

Secondly, if new language was drafted, what is the chance that they would supercede GCA?

Justa wonderin'....

.

tonelar
02-14-2012, 8:48 PM
Anyone with spare ARs AKs and UZIs are gonna make out like bandit$. I expect another panic around November.

pointedstick
02-14-2012, 9:08 PM
You're asking us to speculate about the details of a bill that doesn't exist? :confused:

CSACANNONEER
02-14-2012, 9:16 PM
The answer you seek is: 42.

bohoki
02-14-2012, 9:19 PM
yea it is pretty hard to prove when you made a lower

ClarenceBoddicker
02-14-2012, 10:23 PM
Hypothetically...

If the assault weapon ban were to be re-authorized in a manner unchanged from its former state, would home manufacture of 80% lowers for personal use be allowed?

Secondly, if new language was drafted, what is the chance that they would supercede GCA?

Justa wonderin'....

.

Easy, they could just use the Unsoeld/Bush 1st 922R import standards as the basis for the new ban. No LCMM provisions allowed to be a "sporting" weapon. They could require all non sporting "assault weapons" be registered under the NFA like how the over 1/2" bore guns became "destructive devices" in the NRA supported 1968 GCA. They could also follow the Bill Ruger guidelines & outlaw any over 15 10 or 5 shot mag. For sure no 10 year sunset like last time.

yea it is pretty hard to prove when you made a lower

That didn't work last time with the Clinton AWB. The ATF claimed you had to have in your possession all the AW parts (at least 2 "bad" features & all the other weapon parts) before the bill was signed to be grandfathered in. Just owning a preban receiver didn't count. Without registration that was pretty much unenforceable of course.

wjc
02-14-2012, 10:40 PM
Simple answer. Don't let it get reinstated.

Yemff
02-15-2012, 7:46 AM
yea it is pretty hard to prove when you made a lower

Not if you post pics of your build all over calguns ;)

CHS
02-15-2012, 7:53 AM
If the assault weapon ban were to be re-authorized in a manner unchanged from its former state, would home manufacture of 80% lowers for personal use be allowed?


The original Federal AWB just listed features and said "pick two". For most people that meant keeping the pistol grip and detachable magazine. But it was also not firearm specific, so it didn't matter if you're talking about an AR or AK or anything else.

Regarding home-built guns, the ban never affected stripped AR receivers anyways. So yes, you could home-build an AR15 receiver if you wanted to. The ban applied to complete firearms, so it would affect the way you built the rifle, but not affect you actually building the receiver in any way.


Secondly, if new language was drafted, what is the chance that they would supercede GCA?


Since no language for such a bill exists, that's like trying to predict the future. No idea.

BobB35
02-15-2012, 8:17 AM
I have a question about the "assault weapons" Ban. One of the reasons for the ban was that "Assault weapons" served no sporting purpose....in fact I believe the CA law has this in their reasoning also.

Well since that time there has grown a National sport televised on TV that contradicts that claim. Three gun and action shooting are both very popular. Is there any way to leverage the grown of both sports to put to rest this entire sporting purposes argument any maybe even attack the CA Ban?

HBrebel
02-15-2012, 8:41 AM
Just as these so called 'assault weapons' have no sporting purpose according to the elite and their flocks of sheep, explain what armored vehicles, military combat gear, fully automatic ARs and hi-power sniper rifles have to do with law enforcement?

soldierboy
02-15-2012, 8:53 AM
Just as these so called 'assault weapons' have no sporting purpose according to the elite and their flocks of sheep, explain what armored vehicles, military combat gear, fully automatic ARs and hi-power sniper rifles have to do with law enforcement?
:iagree:
LEO agencies have definately blurred the line between themselves and military operations

dustoff31
02-15-2012, 9:03 AM
Frankly, I'm far more concerned about a people ban so to speak, than any sort of gun ban. It's a lot easier and far more politically palatable to limit the people who are allowed to own guns, than to limit the guns themselves.

IVC
02-15-2012, 9:07 AM
The answer you seek is: 42.

But what is the question, o Deep Thought?

Ubermcoupe
02-15-2012, 9:13 AM
The answer you seek is: 42.

:D

http://clarkbunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/8ballaskagain.gif

If the AWB went in the way “they” want(ed) it to be it would ban pretty punch everything, even 80% lowers because those paper weights are “scary-looking” :facepalm:

bwiese
02-15-2012, 9:23 AM
Back to OP's query...

... if the CA AW law were re-started from its original state and with nothing changed, what would happen?

Let's assume, for consistency and argument's sake that
1. regulatory definitions the same;
2. Harrott v. County of Kings is in force

Thus there would be no change to the OLL EBR situation. These guns are definitionally not AWs, and would not trigger registration, etc.

We have these guns today precisely because they are legal.

IVC
02-15-2012, 9:33 AM
Unfortunately, the definition of an AW would almost certainly change. If (and that is a big IF) there was political will to go down the AW road again, chances are that those drafting the legislation would pay close attention to the ways the intent of the AW laws has been bypassed in places like CA. One can bet Bradies would be involved and advising on how to make it stronger.

For example, just changing the "detachable magazine" to "detachable or attachable magazine" would create all sorts of problems for bullet button configurations. There are many other very mean ways in which a willing participant could use the knowledge from CA to make life very difficult for us.

chead
02-15-2012, 9:40 AM
Not if you post pics of your build all over calguns ;)

I would expect a lot of "here's the lower I built SEVERAL YEARS AGO" threads.

Uxi
02-15-2012, 10:01 AM
Bayonet lugs would be added on a California do-over. Wouldn't surprise me to see any single evil feature earning the moniker, either. ANY pistol grip on a long arm becoming an AW. Any threaded barrel on a long arm, etc.

How long until DeLeon is termed out? :scared:

SilverTauron
02-15-2012, 10:30 AM
Unfortunately, the definition of an AW would almost certainly change. If (and that is a big IF) there was political will to go down the AW road again, chances are that those drafting the legislation would pay close attention to the ways the intent of the AW laws has been bypassed in places like CA. One can bet Bradies would be involved and advising on how to make it stronger.

For example, just changing the "detachable magazine" to "detachable or attachable magazine" would create all sorts of problems for bullet button configurations. There are many other very mean ways in which a willing participant could use the knowledge from CA to make life very difficult for us.

This has happened already .HB 1294 in Illinois is an assault weapons ban bill introduced in January '12 ,which essentially is the California AWB updated with the California work arounds outlawed by name.The Illinois ban specifically outlaws the fearures such as collapsible stocks by name,and if its enacted all gun owners will have 90 days to get the illegal ARs & AKs out of the state or surrendered to police.The same goes for any high capacity magazines above ten rounds,and "magazine parts" are specifically banned in the bill text.

There is no expiraton date,and the 'grandfather' provision is that an owner of banned mags or long arms must furnish proof to the Illinois State Police that the banned items are in fact 'pre-ban' .What constitutes proof of ownership is not defined in the bill,so by my reading its a criterion which will reside in the exclusive purview of the State Police.

There's a real world example of what a modern day AWB would look like.Considering the liberal direction our younger college grads are leaning to these days we can *NEVER* assume that a Federal AWB is impossible.

greybeard
02-15-2012, 10:32 AM
Guys, he is talking about a Federal ban

IVC
02-15-2012, 10:51 AM
They are all "model legislations" that can be adopted at any level of government.

wikioutdoor
02-15-2012, 10:54 AM
what if hypothetically all gun owners banded together and openly fought for there rights?

Uxi
02-15-2012, 10:55 AM
This has happened already .HB 1294 in Illinois is an assault weapons ban bill introduced in January '12 ,which essentially is the California AWB updated with the California work arounds outlawed by name.The Illinois ban specifically outlaws the fearures such as collapsible stocks by name,and if its enacted all gun owners will have 90 days to get the illegal ARs & AKs out of the state or surrendered to police.The same goes for any high capacity magazines above ten rounds,and "magazine parts" are specifically banned in the bill text.

There is no expiraton date,and the 'grandfather' provision is that an owner of banned mags or long arms must furnish proof to the Illinois State Police that the banned items are in fact 'pre-ban' .What constitutes proof of ownership is not defined in the bill,so by my reading its a criterion which will reside in the exclusive purview of the State Police.

There's a real world example of what a modern day AWB would look like.Considering the liberal direction our younger college grads are leaning to these days we can *NEVER* assume that a Federal AWB is impossible.

Wow, yeah that's pretty scary. Barry packing the courts with like minded minions who won't declare such obvious infringements what they are. :facepalm:

SilverTauron
02-15-2012, 11:34 AM
Wow, yeah that's pretty scary. Barry packing the courts with like minded minions who won't declare such obvious infringements what they are. :facepalm:

Or know what they are and do not care.


What is unfortunate about modern America is that there really is a class war going on. Not in regards to money, directly. The classes are composed of people who feel that any and all challenges to this nation should be addressed with a look to the Constitution before taking any action, and the second class is composed of people who believe that our Supreme Law of the Land is obsolete and that big government should control the individual to ensure public security.



People who operate under one class of thinking refuse to consider the thoughts of the other class. We reject the failed principles of large government and the abuses thereof, and the Leftists feel humanity cannot function without a Big Brother system in place to guide each person in the utilitarian principle of the "greatest good for the greatest number of people".

Thus the battle for this nations future has just begun. The OP asks a valid question, because there are people-I wouldn't call them Americans-who live and work in this country who think the original Assault Weapons Ban didn't go far enough.They are quiet now,but just wait until the next spree shooting happens. After the Tucson shooting calls for the AWB's reinstatement went out. After Virginia Tech the leftists called for its return then. And they will do it again on the next tragedy, which is why we all must be committed to educating new people to shooting.

A-J
02-15-2012, 12:22 PM
yea it is pretty hard to prove when you made a lower

Not if you post pics of your build all over calguns ;)

That is a very good point Yemff. Almost nothing on the internet ever really goes away. Someone, somewhere is saving everything. A little startup called Google.

CHS
02-15-2012, 12:55 PM
I have a question about the "assault weapons" Ban. One of the reasons for the ban was that "Assault weapons" served no sporting purpose....in fact I believe the CA law has this in their reasoning also.

Well since that time there has grown a National sport televised on TV that contradicts that claim. Three gun and action shooting are both very popular. Is there any way to leverage the grown of both sports to put to rest this entire sporting purposes argument any maybe even attack the CA Ban?

The last thing we want to do is legitimize the "sporting use" language. "Sporting use" is a scam invented by anti-gunners to marginalize the second amendment as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

I don't want to use a "sporting" firearm for self defense. I want to use a "defensive" firearm for self defense.

The second amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sports.

SilverTauron
02-15-2012, 6:26 PM
The last thing we want to do is legitimize the "sporting use" language. "Sporting use" is a scam invented by anti-gunners to marginalize the second amendment as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

I don't want to use a "sporting" firearm for self defense. I want to use a "defensive" firearm for self defense.

The second amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sports.

I dislike the watering down of the 2nd Amendment as much as the next guy, but the idea of a 'sporting rifle' has helped our case more than hurt it. A lot of uninvolved people believe the only purpose of a gun is to kill. The facts of the matter are that the closest any of us will come to using a firearm in anger is pulling it out of the holster to find the felon running for the horizon.

That is as it should be, but its not exactly the image we wish to present to people wary of firearms who have no opinion one way or the other or who have a misguided fear of arms.

The easiest way to get someone hooked is to have them shoot a gun.The feel of the wheel seals the deal as the car dealer's saw states. Much like selling a car, getting a liberal to the firing line is 9/10ths marketing and 1/10th fact. Part of the marketing is the 'sporting rifle' ethos, which has helped change the image of the AR-15 from 'OMG an ASSAULT RIFLE' to ' Just another American Long Arm'.

JAGACIDA
02-15-2012, 6:43 PM
Just as these so called 'assault weapons' have no sporting purpose according to the elite and their flocks of sheep, explain what armored vehicles, military combat gear, fully automatic ARs and hi-power sniper rifles have to do with law enforcement?

Don't forget drones!

JAGACIDA
02-15-2012, 6:49 PM
How do Federal state and local LE term the weapons they use? What is their definition?

SilverTauron
02-15-2012, 7:05 PM
How do Federal state and local LE term the weapons they use? What is their definition?

"Officer Safety"

That's why the LAPD secretly has a ballistic short ranged nuclear missile installed under the Headquarters building. ;)

Its backup for a felony stop if an officer sees a copy of 'Guns and Ammo' in the passenger seat.

BigDogatPlay
02-15-2012, 7:12 PM
Hypothetically...

If the assault weapon ban were to be re-authorized in a manner unchanged from its former state, would home manufacture of 80% lowers for personal use be allowed?

Secondly, if new language was drafted, what is the chance that they would supercede GCA?

Justa wonderin'....

.

If you mean the federal AWB, it didn't happen when the left controlled the White House and both sides of Congress with large majorities between 2009 and 2011. Why should anyone postulate it could happen in the near to middle distant future, even if Obama wins another term?

That said... could 80% lowers have been built up under the terms of the first federal AWB? Guns were being built and sold through the creative use of 'non-features' and no one stopped making lowers during that time.

CHS
02-15-2012, 8:03 PM
"Officer Safety"

That's why the LAPD secretly has a ballistic short ranged nuclear missile installed under the Headquarters building. ;)

Its backup for a felony stop if an officer sees a copy of 'Guns and Ammo' in the passenger seat.

I almost laughed. Then I realized that this is probably close to the truth... :rolleyes:

ClarenceBoddicker
02-15-2012, 8:24 PM
"Officer Safety"

That's why the LAPD secretly has a ballistic short ranged nuclear missile installed under the Headquarters building. ;)

Its backup for a felony stop if an officer sees a copy of 'Guns and Ammo' in the passenger seat.

+ 1

Connor P Price
02-15-2012, 8:26 PM
what if hypothetically all gun owners banded together and openly fought for there rights?

We are banding together and fighting for our rights. We do it by coming to websites like this to pass on knowledge and learn from one another about our rights and how to stay out of trouble with the law. We do it by donating to and volunteering for the NRA, CGF, SAF, etc. Those organizations fight on the behalf of their membership in the courts. We most certainly are fighting for our rights.

If you mean fight violently, as in a revolution. We have not come anywhere close to needing that and it should always be avoided at all costs. We'll win in the courts, its better that way.

Insight2
02-20-2012, 5:07 AM
Just a couople questions to the forum. Is there a way for a family member to "Keep" /own a banned but legally registered assault weapon after the original registered owner passes.

It seems that after death the weapons must be turned in or destroyed or sold to lEO or moved out of state.

Wouldn't the right to own by inhereting the guns and their legal registration be available to a family member and those laws that regulate property ownership versus the current alternatives be preserved to an immediate family member?

Thanks for any info.

Bolillo
02-20-2012, 8:16 AM
Just a couople questions to the forum. Is there a way for a family member to "Keep" /own a banned but legally registered assault weapon after the original registered owner passes.

It seems that after death the weapons must be turned in or destroyed or sold to lEO or moved out of state.


That is correct. Per PC 30915 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/30915.html) the family / estate has 90 days to:

(a) Render the weapon permanently inoperable.
(b) Sell the weapon to a licensed gun dealer.
(c) Obtain a permit from the Department of Justice in the same manner as specified in Article 3 (commencing with Section 32650) of Chapter 6.
(d) Remove the weapon from this state.

(c) a state-issued AW permit isn't going to happen for a normal citizen. (b) is unlikely since there few CA dealers with an AW permit and they wouldn't be interested in buying something from you that there's no (non-LEO) market for. (d) is not really useful, since a California named "assault weapon" is really just a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle in most of the rest of the US and not especially valuable. Basically it's worth what any 20-year old, pre-owned AR or AK or whatever is worth in another state. (a) is just sad....

Wouldn't the right to own by inhereting the guns and their legal registration be available to a family member and those laws that regulate property ownership versus the current alternatives be preserved to an immediate family member?

Clearly, there are some 14A Equal Protection issues with the current law. I don't think there's another piece of estate property that the state restricts in such a manner. There's probably a good legal case for somebody there, but I'm sure it's way down on the GCF litigation priority list after CCW, roster, 10+ magazines, and other issues that have an impact on a huge number of CA gun owners.

CHS
02-20-2012, 9:48 AM
Just a couople questions to the forum. Is there a way for a family member to "Keep" /own a banned but legally registered assault weapon after the original registered owner passes.


You can keep it in another state.

If the receiver is not a listed receiver, then you could add something like a bullet button to make it no longer an assault weapon and keep it inside the state too.

Uxi
02-20-2012, 4:38 PM
Clearly, there are some 14A Equal Protection issues with the current law. I don't think there's another piece of estate property that the state restricts in such a manner. There's probably a good legal case for somebody there, but I'm sure it's way down on the GCF litigation priority list after CCW, roster, 10+ magazines, and other issues that have an impact on a huge number of CA gun owners.

Yeah seems like a blatant affront to basic property rights, to say nothing of an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. But such is life in Occupied Kalifornia.