Did all Uzi's meet the AWB criteria?


PDA






unixguy
September 21, 2004, 12:38 AM
I'm working up a response to a local letter to the editor in which the writer claimed that the Uzi used in the San Ysidro McDonalds was an assault weapon. I don't know enough about Uzis to know if that specific weapon meets the AWB criteria or not.

I've also read that most of the victims died from shotgun blasts rather than from the Uzi or pistol, but I haven't seen that in any sort of "official" or news report.

Anybody have some help for me in verifying these two items? I'm hoping to get my letter done and mailed in about 12 more hours.

Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "Did all Uzi's meet the AWB criteria?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kaylee
September 21, 2004, 01:07 AM
The term ''semiautomatic assault weapon'' means -
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii)INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(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 non-trigger 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.

If manufactured by IMI, yes. Anyone know if anyone else manufactured them?

http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

unixguy
September 21, 2004, 01:23 AM
The letters page (http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2004/09/20/news/opinion/edit03.txt)


Assault guns are un-American

Although I am a strong believer in the Second Amendment, "the right to have and bear arms," I am for the ban on assault weapons. Here is why.

When hunting game with a shotgun you are allowed three rounds in the chamber. When hunting big game with a rifle you are allowed five rounds in your rifle. But with an assault weapon you can have 29 rounds in your magazine and you can fire off 29 rounds at whatever without reloading.

In the 1980s, 12 people were killed by a man with an assault weapon at a McDonald's restaurant in San Diego, Calif. We should keep laws that make common sense and help protect our citizens.

Having assault weapons legal in this day and age is un-American. The NRA is holding our lawmakers and politicians hostage over this issue. What the NRA should say is, OK let's outlaw all assault weapons but from now on, hands off of any more firearms and all other weapons for sporting that are legal.

When this law was written into our Constitution, our forefathers used muzzle loaders and could only load and fire every 24 seconds. With these assault weapons, you can fire off 29 rounds in less than 15 seconds.

Here is my thought on this issue: If the NRA was the big bad wolf and I was Little Red Riding Hood and this NRA wolf come through my door, I would kick that ol' wolf out so fast he would be running around with a crooked tail.




My outline is basically that although his letter does not (as far as I can tell at the moment) have any factual errors (other than the number of people that were killed), his assertion that the AWB was common sense and protected citizens was wrong on both counts.

I want to draw attention to the misleading news reports that wrongly makes people think they know what the AWB covered, so that folks think about researching it themselves.

I also _want_ to include a reference to Federalist 46, and why the founding fathers wanted the individual citizens to be armed (although recognized that some wouldn't want to be). (I'm a bit concerned that I'll lose reader's interest if I bring that up, so probably will leave it out.)

I want to point out that the deeply disturbing thing to _me_ about the AWB is that represented yet another departure from "things that make sense".

Thanks!

unixguy
September 21, 2004, 01:28 AM
Thanks Kaylee. Need to go to sleep and let my thoughts percolate.

standingbear
September 21, 2004, 08:04 AM
Anyone know if anyone else manufactured them? there are copies of the imi uzi made everywhere..norinco of china made em(an got sued) along with a few us made designs.

boofus
September 21, 2004, 08:06 AM
www.vectorarms.com sold US made versions that were post-ban legal.

RavenVT100
September 21, 2004, 09:05 AM
Real UZIs, AKMs, and what-have-you were not covered under this ban because the ban covered semiautomatic weapons and not select-fire ones. This is a fact that needs to be re-emphasized to the public whenever you're speaking about the AWB. They believe that it was a ban on the automatic versions of these guns.

RKCheung
September 21, 2004, 11:26 AM
Unix,

You should add that the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting (animals at least).

TarpleyG
September 22, 2004, 07:56 AM
In the 1980s, 12 people were killed by a man with an assault weapon at a McDonald's restaurant in San Diego, Calif. We should keep laws that make common sense and help protect our citizens.
You know what I find odd about this statement? After a similar incident happened at the Luby's in Texas, the Texas government passed a CCW bill. The exact opposite of what Feinswine wanted to do. Which law do you think had more bang for the buck?

Greg

Destructo6
September 22, 2004, 03:46 PM
We should keep laws that make common sense
How do you make or create common sense?
In the 1980s, 12 people were killed by a man with an assault weapon at a McDonald's restaurant in San Diego, Calif. We should keep laws that make common sense and help protect our citizens.
And just a few months ago, 6 people were murdered by folks weilding baseball bats, silently. One example, regardless of its graphic nature, should not be the basis for far-reaching laws.

Foreign Devil
September 22, 2004, 03:50 PM
In the 1980s, 12 people were killed by a man with an assault weapon at a McDonald's restaurant in San Diego, Calif.

In the 1990's, over 80 people were killed by a man with a can of gasoline and a match in New York City.

cookie
October 26, 2004, 11:42 PM
Vector did make post-ban UZIs, and they are selling their current models for less than $600 now. Depending on the reciever you choose, some have bayonet lugs and some do not.

If you enjoyed reading about "Did all Uzi's meet the AWB criteria?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!