How has the "Assault Weapons" ban affected you?

vanity-self | 4/19/03 | self

[Centurion2000]

Yes you can still buy the products, but the AWB has imposed an artificial scarcity on certain models and magazines and has driven the price up by 200+% in some cases of weapons.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Okay, now I'm confused...If they were pre-ban, why were they illegal? It's okay to buy preban, and unless they are marked that they are "post-ban" they are presumed to be legal.

Restricted high capacity post-ban magazines are in most cases identical to their pre-ban equivalents except for a small date stamp and serial number. The magazines which were sold to my "friend" as completely unregulated pre-ban magazines were in fact law-enforcement restricted post-ban high capacity magazines. It makes no difference that they were misrepresented prior to the sale or that the seller may have attempted to conceal or remove the date stamp, my "friend" was in violation of a federal felony punishable by what I believe is 10 years in prison and $250,000.

They same danger is also present with 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill restricted rifles, shotguns, and pistols. By adding certain accessories or stocks, firearms made after September of 1994 can be converted to equally illegal configurations identifiable only with reference to its manufacturers production records.

Making all of this even more confusing, having a firearm made before the ban went into effect does not necessarily make it "pre-ban". The firearm in question must have been in a restricted configuration at the moment the law went into effect or it can not be legally put in that configuration thereafter. This means that whoever has purchased a pre-ban firearm in the last eight years is risking a federal felony unless they have some proof that their firearm was in a pre-ban configuration on that fateful day in 1994 (and how do you prove that?). Otherwise, a record may exist with some dealer or distributor (and the ATF) that they it was possessed on that date in a non-restricted configuration.

The arbitrary and confusing nature of these restrictions has created a high level of uncertainty and fear among many otherwise tax paying, law-abiding citizens. But that, after all, was the main rational purpose of the law. It's a shame that the President has decided to support its renewal; and if he looses in 2004, history may also record his decision as a tragedy.

[Henrietta]

Wow. So the seller misrepresented the manufacture date, it seems. This is the info I was seeking... Thanks.

More reasons to ditch this horrid law.

[PatrioticAmerican]

1. AR-15 magazines are now $34 instead of $7.
2. Cannot buy an AR-15 in certain evil configurations.
3. The price of an AR-15 went from $450 to $900.
4. Most weapons cannot be obtained in many states or at all nationally.
5. The stigma has created an atmosphere whereby many ranges frown on or strictly forbid "assault weapons".
6. Aftermarket parts are now stupidly designed to meet federal laws that make no sense.

etc, etc, etc.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Your comparisons are flawed.
"

Not really. Foreigners come here on H1-B visas and we are not supposed to mention their standard of living.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"No kidding. If you can't trust them with a firearm, then you can't trust them in society. "

ditto. I've been preaching that for years. If they can't be trusted around of with a gun then why are they out of prison?

[B4Ranch]

Was your post intended for someone else? Look at my tag line.

[Jesse]

Yes, sorry. Wild Game.

[dinodino]

POST #1. You argued that it didn't affect you, implied that it didn't affect anybody else, and then threw in a cry of "Vote Republican!"

[HamiltonJay]

Its the way the system works, rarely do you see any laws that don't require review and reapproval ever so many years. Why do you think we are talking about the assault weapon ban again? Because its expiring and coming up for renewal.

[William Terrell]

Why do you think we are talking about the assault weapon ban again? Because its expiring and coming up for renewal.

That's because it had a sunset clause which is near expiration. This is an exception with federal legislation, as far as I know. To believe that most federal legislation is passed with a sunset, I would need more evidence than your statement.

But for a few exceptions, all legislation I have ever heard of was passed and codified into law, and that was it, unless repealed.

[ExSoldier]

It's one more little incremental erosion of our freedoms on the road to total confiscation. It's forced me to accept 10 rounds in a magazine that ought to hold between 12 and 15 or more. In a crisis it might make the difference between having enough rounds to do the job and maybe not. I ALWAYS carry a spare magazine when I carry a gun. When carrying my Ruger SP101 I carry three reloads in speedloaders. When carrying a Glock or Beretta or other semi-auto, I usually carry 1-2 spare mags depending on my destination and route that day. The caliber is also dependent on where I'm going to be. All in all, I strongly favor having MORE rather than LESS ammo! The stupid mag ban exemplifies this. ALSO, I don't enjoy paying over $100 for a high cap magazine.

Bush #41 really crisped my butt when he showed his NWO crfedentials in using an Executive Order to ban the importation of inexpensive Chinese 7.62x39 ammo and in the banning from importation a whole series of extremely capable firearms by a variety of gunmakers like the H&K PSG-1.

I'm less concerned by this ban because it will sunset than I am in fearing what may rise in it's place and be permanent. The Brady Bunch is already pursuing a whole slew of "improvements" to the old ban including requiring an "arsenal license" if you own more than say three guns; or a tax per bullet or a ban on reloading equipment. George Washington is alledged to have said this: "Fear the government that FEARS your guns!"

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Just read all the repsonses from the one-issue whiners. The consensus answer so far: No. Oh, they squirm and spit about phantom "injury" of various kinds, but that brass-tacks, bottom-line, striaght-up answer is "No, the assault weapons ban has not affected my ability to buy whatever the hell I want whenever the hell I want."

I have to pay $60 for $30 twenty-round magazines for my rifle. My Glock 30 round magazine cost me $85 when it should be selling for a mere $30. My son will never be able to buy magazines over ten rounds if the ban continues unless he wants to pay over $400 per magazine.

They are chipping away the Second Amendment one piece at a time until you will not be able to own any firearms at all because of all the restrictions and regulations on them.

[antaresequity]

Take a look at California...that is exactley what the AWB is going to lead to.

I can't even purchase an AW in California.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

They call the rifles "ASSAULT WEAPONS" to demonize them. When one calls a firearm an assault weapon, it infers that you are going to use it to murder people. I will not use the term "assault weapon" anymore. They are words coined by people who hate firearms and want to ban them all.

I call my firearms home defense weapons because I that is exactly what I will use them for.

[meyer]

The real question ought to be "how did the so-called "assault-weapons" ban affect gun crimes? The real answer will be: "it didn't".

[xm177e2]

The ban has not affected me at all, because I live in CA. But if there was no state-level ban, I would own an AR-15.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

With your screen name I have to ask, do you own a Colt XM-177E2?

[meyer]

I'm not for any weapons ban at all, and I'm not a total one issue Republican. I have a few "litmis test" of my own. Abortion, 2nd Amedment, Taxes. I just fail to see how this weapons ban has stopped someone from buying and owning any firearm they could before the ban. Again, with the one exception of the restraining orders floating around out there.

First, the restraining order issue - it has been hashed about here and elsewhere. It gives one disgruntled party unbridled power to disarm another based on here-say. That isn't a minor issue in itself.

The "weapons ban" has costed gun enthusiasts a ton of money by making reasonably priced guns more expensive. It has put a limit on larger magazines, pushing prices up. It has caused manufacturers of such fine weapons as the AR-15 to have to re-tool to eliminate the deadly bayonet clip (note that to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a single murder in the US in which a mounted bayonet was used - that would be silly. Why use a knife in a gun-fight?). None of these are good things.

But as I asked before, what good has the ban done that it should be extended?

I'm certainly not a single-issue republican either. I judge based on many issues. But it should be noted that the gun issue is the single most important issue we have. Why? Because the second amendment is the one amendment that gives the people the power to stop tyranny. I'll not base my vote only on this issue, but it weighs more heavily than most when I decide which box to mark on election day (or if I even mark any box).