PDA

View Full Version : The consequences of AW BAN


Ctwo
07-25-2012, 3:03 PM
What would be most probable consequences if a new or existing ban were to take place?

Which weapons would most likely be affected, to what degree, and how would that impact current AW owners?

I realize this is hypothetical, but I missed out on the previous ban and am just curious how it would work.

Nick Justice
07-25-2012, 3:11 PM
Probably be similar to the expired federal one. Any semi-auto gun with detachable mag, and one (or two) or more specific features: Folding/collapsible stock; pistol grip; flash hider; barrel shroud; maybe bayonet lug, shoulder thing that goes up; was forged in the fires of Mt. Doom by evil elves... Will probably be permanent. If you already have a banned gun, you can keep it; may require registration (5-7% compliance is the latest best estimate). No mags over ten rounds. See California's flow chart on this site.

CAL.BAR
07-25-2012, 3:12 PM
If it were a federal ban the results in california it would be none. Aw's are already banned in california by name and feature. Bands on high capacity magazines would also be negligible as they have been banned in california for over a decade. See isn't it great to live in california. (Lol)

shortyforty
07-25-2012, 3:25 PM
In California we probably wouldn't notice any significant changes with the exception of the mini 14, m1A, and sks. I've heard that the anti's are specifically targeting these rifles.

Ctwo
07-25-2012, 3:27 PM
Well, I'm reading things like, ban all AR/AK. What is unique about the mini-14, M1A, and SKS? is it because they are auto? So ALL auto rifles would be banned?

curtisfong
07-25-2012, 3:30 PM
Don't even bother wasting time on this topic.

1) it won't happen
2) if it does, there is no way of knowing the repercussions until the bill is actually authored

vantec08
07-25-2012, 3:33 PM
The consequences is probably more litigation - -- long, protracted, expensive. What we need, we arent going to get: a final, powerful stomping on antis by SCOTUS. Nor the next best thing .. . . criminal prosecution of those who conspire to violent civil rights.

Stroker Ace
07-25-2012, 3:43 PM
Even when the 10 year ban was in place you could still buy Assault Weapons in most states. They just became pre ban and post ban. You could also still buy normal capacity 30 round mags and 100 round mags and drums but they cost a lot more.. The Federal assault weapons ban did nothing because you could still buy assault weapons all you had to do was pay more for a "pre ban"

Ctwo
07-25-2012, 3:45 PM
Don't even bother wasting time on this topic.

1) it won't happen
2) if it does, there is no way of knowing the repercussions until the bill is actually authored

Don't even bother?

1) It could happen, I think there was once an AW ban in the not too distant past. Are you really going suggest that that particular ban could NEVER be reinstated, or any like it?

2) I'm sure nobody could accurately guess what such a bill would say, but I'm sure there are likely, plausible effects that could be articulated. It's also hard to believe that you would take this position given your omniscience POV stated in 1.

Ctwo
07-25-2012, 3:48 PM
Those are good points about the effects of previous AW bans, and especially WRT the costs and pre/post ban classifications.

Would it still be impossible for the feds to enact a full outright ban on all semi-auto rifles? BTW, I think there is some sort of ban on full-auto rifles?

IVC
07-25-2012, 4:15 PM
If it were a federal ban the results in california it would be none. Aw's are already banned in california by name and feature.

Not so fast. Federal regulation could easily be stricter and guided by the examples from CA.

It's highly unlikely to happen in a climate where the basic bills cannot pass and the election is a few months away. Even after the election, it's very hard to get support for something that has been proven not to work by trying it between 1994 and 2004.

Dr Rockso
07-25-2012, 4:16 PM
Would it still be impossible for the feds to enact a full outright ban on all semi-auto rifles?
Given the "in common use" and "dangerous and unusual" language out of SCOTUS it would be pretty difficult to imagine. Semi-auto rifles in general, and ARs in particular, have been undeniably "in common use" for a long, long time.

BTW, I think there is some sort of ban on full-auto rifles?
Yeah.....NFA 1934 made them highly regulated, and an amendment to FOPA in 1986 made them basically unobtanium for most average folks. If you live in a state that allows it you can still buy a machine gun, but expect it to cost as much as a new car and take months for the paperwork to clear.

curtisfong
07-25-2012, 5:16 PM
Don't even bother?


Yes. Waste of time and energy. Doubly so *if there isn't even a bill to reference*


1) It could happen, I think there was once an AW ban in the not too distant past. Are you really going suggest that that particular ban could NEVER be reinstated, or any like it?


Post Heller, no. Period.


2) I'm sure nobody could accurately guess what such a bill would say, but I'm sure there are likely, plausible effects that could be articulated.

No. Heller leaves very little wiggle room. The only stuff left (if it squeaked by SCOTUS) would be unintended consequences of the author(s), and those are impossible to predict w/o seeing the actual wording.


It's also hard to believe that you would take this position given your omniscience POV stated in 1.

Then you don't understand my POV.

mag360
07-25-2012, 5:31 PM
the federal ban 94-04 was a stupid restriction.

you could have a fully functional AR/AK with pistol grip and detachable mag. It just had to have the bayonet lug sawed off and a muzzle break instead of a flash hider.

or a pinned stock, but no bayonet lug or flash hider. you could keep, use, buy any "pre ban" gun or magazine.

there had to have been people with hundreds of mags. I know that glock purposely ran their factories 24hrs a day for months before the ban to stock pile greater than 10rd mags. This is how we still see boxes of 30rd AR 15 "pre-ban" mags come up for sale.

G60
07-25-2012, 6:18 PM
It's official: " AK-47s belong in the hands of soldier and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,Ē - Obama, today.

Connor P Price
07-25-2012, 6:34 PM
It's official: " AK-47s belong in the hands of soldier and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,Ē - Obama, today.

Link?

M1A_KICHI
07-25-2012, 6:38 PM
It's official: " AK-47s belong in the hands of soldier and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,Ē - Obama, today.

You would think Obama would know what rifle our troops use :rolleyes:. Heck, I know he isn't talking about my WASR's since they are not real AK-47's or assault rifles. So much fail all over the place it's sickening.

TempleKnight
07-25-2012, 6:39 PM
Link?

"Never let a crisis go to waste" sound familiar?

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/obama-aks-belong-on-battlefield-not-streets-130141.html

hoffmang
07-25-2012, 7:52 PM
Can't get out of the House.

And the real consequence of a push for an AW ban federally right now?

President Mitt Romney.

-Gene

yellowfin
07-25-2012, 8:02 PM
^ And would he repeal anything on the books now?

mag360
07-25-2012, 8:58 PM
Obama hopefully just every fence sitting gun owner but there are a couple on here who still think he is "placating his base"... hmmm you mean people that would have voted for him anyways.

wjc
07-25-2012, 9:02 PM
^ And would he repeal anything on the books now?

That is the $64000.00 question.

BTW, he couldn't repeal it...just suggest it. The Congress would probably have to repeal it.

kaligaran
07-25-2012, 9:05 PM
His AK47 comment is really funny.

However, I appaud his point of making parents responsible for their kids actions and making the statement in a very round about way that laws will not prevent violence:
ďAs we convene these conversations, letís be clear even as we debate governmentís role, we have to understand that when a child opens fire on another child, thereís a hole in that childís heart that government alone canít fill," he said. "Itís got to be up to us as parents, as neighbors and as teachers and as mentors to make sure our young people donít have that void inside them. Itís up to us to spend time with them. To pay more attention to them. To show them more love and they learn to love each other and they learn to love one another and they grow up knowing what it is to walk a mile in somebody elseís shoes and to view the world in somebody elseís eyes."

NorCalDustin
07-25-2012, 9:26 PM
^ And would he repeal anything on the books now?

IMHO... He wouldn't care. He's supported AW bans before... He'll do it again... He doesn't care.

If he is elected he'll probably be a good boy for the first 4 years. After that, we need someone who's BETTER.

cjc16
07-25-2012, 9:29 PM
civil war.

Dave07997S
07-25-2012, 9:37 PM
It's official: " AK-47s belong in the hands of soldier and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” - Obama, today.

See he's a commie..it should have been "AR15/M16s belong in the hands of soldiers....." Doesn't even know what type of weapons systems his own military is using.

DannyInSoCal
07-25-2012, 9:40 PM
What would be most probable consequences if a new or existing ban were to take place?

Which weapons would most likely be affected, to what degree, and how would that impact current AW owners?

I realize this is hypothetical, but I missed out on the previous ban and am just curious how it would work.

Google it...

mosinnagantm9130
07-25-2012, 9:44 PM
^ And would he repeal anything on the books now?

I don't think so, simply because that is far from his highest priority.

How would that look to the American people if he got elected promising economic prosperity and jobs, and his first action was to tell congress to get rid of the 68 GCA?

Changalang
07-25-2012, 10:21 PM
makes sense that theyd want to ban all imports and pretty much anything that can fire a .30 cal bi-metal bullet lol

SilverTauron
07-25-2012, 11:34 PM
What would be most probable consequences if a new or existing ban were to take place?


Nothing, as the original AWB passed by the skin of its teeth in the mid 1990s-back when gun control had more support in the population, the Democrats had a majority in Federal government, and the anti-gun mainstream media possessed a monopoly on news distribution.

Today MSNBC and co are on the brink of joining the whaling industry in obsolescence, Democrats do NOT have a majority in the House, and recent gun control polls show that support is at a record low.

Quser.619
07-26-2012, 1:08 AM
besides the last thing Obama wants is to motivate the unwashed hordes of flyover country. The Senate will pass something so that they can say "See, I tried" & nothing will get by the house.

yellowfin
07-26-2012, 5:35 AM
I don't think so, simply because that is far from his highest priority.

How would that look to the American people if he got elected promising economic prosperity and jobs, and his first action was to tell congress to get rid of the 68 GCA?Actually that would be a great idea for creating jobs, as the GCA is a major restraint of commerce. The current boom in the firearms industry would probably be doubled if the GCA were eliminated, creating tens of thousands of jobs easily. That might be the single easiest decision they could make.

Mesa Tactical
07-26-2012, 5:57 AM
What would be most probable consequences if a new or existing ban were to take place?

If the 1994 ban is anything to go by, the most likely consequence would be a ten year boom in AR-15 sales.

hornswaggled
07-26-2012, 6:23 AM
The best consequence is that we in California will be able to turn around to those individuals and businesses from other states who laugh at our plight and say, "Hahaha f--- you CA, go change your gun laws," and tell them, "No, see.....? F---- YOU."

That's what I'd look forward to anyway.