How has the "Assault Weapons" ban affected you?

vanity-self | 4/19/03 | self

[Wild Game]

NO, I don't believe all Americans who are fed up with their freedoms being trashed are Buchanan supporters.

However, this is FreeRepublic and when someone comes out of the chute to attack Bush, they're either a bursting liberal, or a pitchfork.

Thats my opinion. One of many.

[El Gato]

You didn't buy a new AK-47 wannabe with a 40 round magazine. You bought the gun and then bought the mag seperately. If you bought the gun and mag as a single unit, you and the dealer have committed a felony. Can you see the difference?

Not true, if the gun contained enough US Parts, or was entirely US made for that matter, and did not feature enough of the "evil" features for the ban to apply, which is why the new ones don't have bayonet lugs or flash suppressors. Be advised though that that US parts count, often includes parts of the magazine, if not the whole magazine. My rebuilt G-3 contains several US made parts, including the receiver, but it's very picky about magazines, and I've not been able to get most of the "pre ban" junk to feed properly. The real G-3 magazines are still importable and can be sold, (although Fienswine et. al. want to change that) but if I put an unmodified one into my rifle, I'd be creating a banned gun. Needless to say, I don't own any of them, considering the way BATFE is always deciding that if you have the parts to make a banned or controled item, you have the item.

[Joe Hadenuf]

NO, I don't believe all Americans who are fed up with their freedoms being trashed are Buchanan supporters.

Yeah sure? You could be right, however, I have confidence in the over all majority, that are content to lurk, and those that choose to remain silent and strong, those that would be in agreement with upholding the second amendment, at all cost.......

[Bella_Bru]

While it has not personally affected me, it does concern me. We must always have our eyes open, watching carefully, whatever today's trend in what firearms are "scary" or "ugly". Many here may feel safe with, "Well, all I have is a 12 gauge and a .38", but please be aware that those may be tomorrow's "scary, so we gotta take them away" firearms.

Hey, Anna? Please post that pic you have, the funny one of the derringer. ;-)

[Djarum]

Glock model 21 mags are going for $140 and more. This will be the fate of many models of firearm if this ban continues for another 10 years.

[El Gato]

And the few features you cannot get (ie can't attach a bayonet) can easily be achieved by after market products.

Of course if you do that, you have just manufactured a banned weapon and may go to jail, and you will certainly lose your RKBA forever. You can subsitute a similar appearing part, such as a muzzle brake for a flash suppressor, but you can't just willy nilly attach banned items. You could buy a collapsible stock, but if you put it on your firearm, you are risking becoming Bubba or Lizzi's bitch.

[El Gato]

What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having a problem with? This is the bottom line, no local, state or federal government has the authority to infringe on my God given right to possess any firearms.

Well, to be completely correct, the 2nd amendment doesn't mention firearms, but only arms. When it was passed, private ownership of cannon and even cannon armed warships, the "ultimate weapon" of the day, was not unheard of. That can be seen by the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to issue "letters of Marque and Reprissal". No point in being able to grant a "hunting license" (to hunt foreign ships) if no one can own a gun (in this case cannon armed privateers). Individuals often owned cannon too, although ownership by a town or township was more common.

[Lurker]

It has pissed me off.

That's enough.

L

[El Gato]

The founders didn't add the 2nd Amendment on a slow day. They discussed the potential need for it for months then worded it very carefully.

One thing they considered adding and didn't was a phrase something like "for the common defense" which would have appeared right after the phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms". They, the first Senate where the amendment was proposed, wanted it perfectly clear that the right applied to keeping arms for any purpose the individuals making up the people desired. Some state constitutions did and do contain that phrase in their RKBA provision.

[HangFire]

Yeah, me too. Next you won't be able to own a _____________!

[xm177e2]

No, I chose my screen name years ago as an online handle to play video games (my only experience with xm-anythings has been in a book)

[El Gato]

A so-called "assualt weapon" is a weapon that looks scary to those who want to disarm the American public. It is a semi-auto rifle with one or more of the following characteristics: a flash hider, a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, a folding stock, a removable magazine, or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds (I'm missing some stuff here; somebody help me out).

The import ban, instituted under GHW Bush under the "sporting purposes" provision of the 1968 Gun Control Act, and later modified under President Clinton has slightly different critera. additionally a 1990 law baned assembly of guns from imported parts that would create a gun that could not be otherwise imported. BATF's regulation [178.39, Commerce in Firearms] prohibits using more than 10 "imported parts," from a list of 20 parts, such as trigger, hammer, barrel, etc. BATFE sets the critera for "not importable". So these only apply to domestically produced arms, there is also a list of guns banned by name in the AWB law. From the AWB legislation:

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

[El Gato]

I call 'em "sport utility rifles"

I prefer something like "civilian defense rifles" or maybe "anti terorism rifles", but I prefer the latter and really really like "militia rifles", since that is what they are, but it's also extremely non politically correct and sure to give any hoplophobic Soccer Mom or Dad a bad case of the vapors.

[El Gato]

able to accept a > 10 round removable magazine is banned.

Oops, after looking at the law, it's ANY removeable magazine that triggers the "two other evil features" test, the >10 round magazine is a separate deal, although passed as part of the same "crime control" bill. In practice that means you get the pistol grip and none of the other stuff. Without the pistol grip, the ergonomics of most of the guns under consideration are destroyed or severly degraded, most especiallly the AR series.

[El Gato]

I don't know, but the ban isn't on buying per se, it's on selling

Oops again, it's on both, but otherwise the comments still apply. It's hard to buy something that no one will sell.

[dinodino]

Wild Game, I've hadenuf of this. I'm going to cut and paste from your post #1. If you don't like the way your words sound, CHANGE THEM, but it was clear to us gun activists what your intent was.

"Has the "Assault Weapons" ban prevented you from enjoying, purchasing, selling or trading firearms? ... How did it not change anything for you?"
[Implication: that the AW ban did NOT change anything for us.]

"My story doesn't reflect a major problem."
[Emphasizing your central point: that the gun ban had no effect and is not a problem.]

"but to allow the demoncraps to get re-elected or elected over a law that doesn't affect our rights (even though the gun grappers thought it would) is really crazy"
[Here, the OUTRAGEOUS assertion that the gun ban did not infringe on our rights, followed by a plea to not elect or reelect Democrats. I presumed from your followup posts that you are not a registered member of the Libertarian or Constitution Parties, so unless your vote was for the Socialist World Workers' Party or whatever they call it, this was a plea to vote Republican.]

In your own words, pal.

[Atlas Sneezed]

In addition to the increasing cost of magazines and rifles with certain practical features (all the militaries of the world can't be wrong), one major effect of the ban has not yet been noted here:

It prevents citizens from obtaining modern rifles of certain designs. Even if one can afford the inflated cost of a pre-ban AR, HK, FAL, etc, one is stuck with 30-year-old technology. I am denied the chance to buy a MODERN rifle because of the ban.

I am also denied the chance to buy a modern pistol with normal magazine capacity. New guns come out all the time, but there is no existing stock of magazines for them.

These factors will grow in significance over the generations, as we are stuck with 1970s or older guns that become so scarce and valuable that they will not be widely distributed among free citizens, but will be "safe-queens" like current machine guns (of which there exists one for every thousand citizens -- not much of a counterbalanace to a standing army!)

[Henrietta]

"However, this is FreeRepublic and when someone comes out of the chute to attack Bush,"

When Bush (or anyone else, for that matter) proposes to extend laws that are hostile to our liberties, he DESERVES to be criticized (or "attacked," to you). It is our DUTY as citizens to hold our leaders in check, and to keep them from passing laws that are detrimental to us. If Bush refuses to be a leader for our 2nd amendment rights, then we must show him the error of his ways, and if he still doesn't get it, we must show him the door.

We are responsible for preserving our liberties against well-meaning but constitutionally improper leaders with constitutionally improper ideas.

[Lazamataz]

????? Who are you and how did you get Laz's moniker here at FR ?:o) Missed yer wit here Laz.....half and nit. Glad to see ya back .

Hey bro! Good to see ya too! Things are definitely looking up in every arena of life lately! How's the Sqantos-man?

[Lazamataz]

Sheesh you guys really go over the top.

Dane, I already know that "staying true to your principles" = "really going over the top" in DaneSpeak^(tm).

Please come up with something new.