Gun law changes in 08?


June 16, 2006, 12:26 PM
OK, this may be a bit odd and paranoid but here goes. Assuming things turn anti in 08 with the new government, there would probably be a new AWB. So lets say I want to acquire a few 'assault weapons.' The way I understand, the receiver is THE GUN and everything else is just the rest of the gun. Being a broke college student, I wold be buying against the clock before any bands would take effect. Do you all think it wold be of any value to buy the receivers (of an AR, FAL, and M1A) and finish the the guns with kits that would be ban?

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun law changes in 08?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
June 16, 2006, 12:45 PM
Pure speculation, since you have no idea what any new law might say. It may be cosmetic feature based, or it might be gun based, or behavior based, or ammo based, or who knows what. Worst case scenario, there is no grandfather clause and you need to turn your stuff in. (I won't even go into the potential nightmare scenario something that stupid would be) We can all play Chicken Little, but at this point it is pure conjecture.

That said, as a gun store owner, natural disasters, riots, gun law debates, and elections help me pay the rent. :)

Don't panic. Don't go into debt. Don't do anything stupid. Buy receivers as you can afford to anyway, as building your own EBRs is a lot of fun, and educational.

June 16, 2006, 12:58 PM
By the way, I've seen the acronym EBR used many times, but never have been able to figure out what it means. What does it mean?

Brett Bellmore
June 16, 2006, 01:03 PM
Evil Black Rifle. LOL!

The way to cope with a prospective gun ban that is pretty much independent of the specifics, is to not buy a gun. Buy a milling machine. :evil:

June 16, 2006, 01:03 PM
EBR= Evil Black Rifle

Correia speaks words of wisdom.
Buy what you can afford right now, but don't go crazy.

Remember that new laws could prohibit the sales of kits in the future as well, which would make your receiver a paperweight.

You're better off making a complete rifle now. Plus you can enjoy it now. :cool:

June 16, 2006, 01:11 PM
"evil black rifle" LOL!

I've used that phrase many times, but never knew that there was an acronym for it!

June 16, 2006, 02:31 PM
At present, I completely reject the premise that the government is going to turn "anti" in 08.


June 16, 2006, 03:33 PM
Every time I buy a gun I make sure to buy a lower receiver for an AR or a 1911 frame. I figure since I’m filling out the paperwork anyway, and since in RI once your background check comes back clean you can buy the whole store if you want, so I just buy a frame or lower. I figure that I could always buy parts to complete them or I could sell/trade them at a latter date.

June 16, 2006, 03:39 PM
I'm way to honest to be a gun dealer sometimes. Wait, let me try this:

Buy them now! Hillary is coming! Hillary is coming! And you she is going to ban... wait... let me see what I have a lot of in stock... Ruger Mini 30s! That's right! The Mini 30 is going to be banned!


Seriously, I have no problem stocking up on receivers. It makes perfect sense. I just hate to see guys go nuts and dig themselves into a financial hole. BTW, I've got LAR AR lowers for $100. And LAR lowers are excellent.

June 16, 2006, 04:16 PM
BTW, I've got LAR AR lowers for $100.
Not to hijack the thread, but...

Being new to this whole thing, about what would be the rest of the cost to put together an inexpensive, basic, but decent quality AR?

June 16, 2006, 04:53 PM
I've been looking into that for a build I'm doing, As near as I can tell, you'll have to spend about 200-250 for a decent barreled upper, probably a bit more like 300-350 with demand being what it is. and another 100-150 for a Bolt carier Group. A stock usually runs between 25 bucks and 45 bucks for a decent one with the spring, buffertube and buffer.

A lower parts kit is about 45-65 for a good one.

June 16, 2006, 05:48 PM
If you want to go uber inexpensive, the sportsman's guide has complete Colt A1 rifles (you supply the lower receiver) for $400. Thats everything you need to build a rifle, stock, barrel, trigger group, gas system... the whole thing soup to nuts. All that you need is a stripped receiver. Is it worth it, I dont know. But I buy the stripped lowers for two reasons: The first is because i'll find uses for them (i have a RRA lower awaiting a 6.5 grendal upper and match trigger group. The other is a SHTF senario. Yes I own a tin-foil hat, but i olny sport it on special occasions.:D

June 16, 2006, 07:48 PM
The direction of the nation, including the DOJs interpretation in 2004-ish, is that the Constitution guarantees INDIVIDUAL RKBA.

So Federally we're moving in the "more freedom" direction.

Most states are also moving in the "more free" direction too.

After the pure failure on all fronts of the AWB and failures of gun control arguments -- it cost millions of dollars, it cost the Dems many seats (including the presidency), and it did nothing really but increase, yes increase, gun ownership as people started buying guns for fear there was going to be a "run" on guns -- I think that most sensible Dems have really backed off this issue.

Gun control just isn't a popular issue, nor is it a position that is supported by the Constitution.

While anything can change overnight -- it might even just take one really bad shooting -- it's impossible to predict.

Buy as often and you can afford to buy, buy want you want and will like and use, and use your 2A rights often.

Low Key
June 16, 2006, 08:14 PM
We do seem to be moving in the direction of more firearms freedoms at present. The "stand your ground" law now has 8 states onboard I believe, and concealed carry is pretty well accepted by most states. The liberals keep screaming for more gun control, but people aren't buying it...especially in the south. The gun control group is pretty loud overall but they are still in minority numbers.

June 16, 2006, 09:32 PM
My advice: Definitely consider buying up a few FAL recievers and some parts kits if you can. Recent import bans on recievers and barrels mean that even if no major changes come in 2008 any parts kits and recievers picked up now won't lose their value.

As for AR lowers, one can never get enough AR lowers to store away. They are extremly easy to build and right now can be found for as low as $90 each.

As for a future AWB, I fear that if an AWB does come the left would use the fact that the last AWB had no effect on crime to insist on a much stricker AWB this time around.

June 17, 2006, 03:42 AM
Even if the "New York" senator wins in '08, I think she'll avoid guns like the plague. I think if someone asks her about it during the campaign, she'll secretly have them strangled. She doesn't want to have to say a word about it.

The AWB is the issue that hurt the dems more than any other single issue in '94, and with the current momentum strongly in favor of gun owners, I think she would want to go the first four years without having to hear a single word about it. HER WORST NIGHTMARE, would be for another Columbine during her first term, which would force her to confront the issue. This would KILL her in 2012. She would have to go on record, and there's no way she could fool enough of the people to save her bacon.

Make no mistake, she is not gun friendly, but she's not stupid either. IF she does anything at all, it will be during her lame-duck term.

June 17, 2006, 04:32 AM
If there is a re-instated AWB, look for it to be expanded. MOST semi-autos will be put on the list. ALL of the former list of AW's will be illegal to posses, no Grand-Father clause. If you are "allowed" to keep them they will be put under the NFA. ALL hi-cap mags will be outlawed, no Grand-daddy there either (unless you register each one under the NFA).

.50BMG rifles will be put under the NFA. Next it will get silly...any cartridge "based on" the .50 BMG will be outlawed also. So, all you wild-caters out there, don't even think about necking down your big fifty and calling it a .499 Zipper. They'll whine and cray and say..."Look, those gun nuts are getting by because of a loop-hole in the law!"

Then there will be the new "Sniper Rifle Prohibition and Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2009. It will be a law writen much as the AWB of 1994. It will define all rifles with telescopic sights and any list of "militarizing features", such as heavy barrels, synthetic stocks, "take down capability", trigger pull weight of less than three pounds, or chambered in any military caliber, such as, but not limited to, .308/7.62NATO, 30-06, .300WinMag, or any other caliber or cartridge designation now in service or previously in service with the armed forces.

Watch also for a "National Instant Check System Enhancement Act". This will eliminate the 3 day wait for a transfer if there is a delay from the NICS, after the dealer calls it in. In other words, the FIB will be able to say....not right now...or, I don't think we'll ALLOW you that gun today (or any other day) any time they want to. There will be nothing you can do about it legally.

There will be extraordianry taxes laid on the retail sale of firearms of all types. Extra heavy taxes on handguns. Exports of firearms will be restricted in accordance with the U.N. mandate.

If you re-elect the Republicans it might be ten more years before all the above comes to pass. But, its coming.....

Do you people see it? Or, do you not want to see it?

June 17, 2006, 04:38 AM
Even if the "New York" senator wins in '08, I think she'll avoid guns like the plague. I think if someone asks her about it during the campaign, she'll secretly have them strangled. She doesn't want to have to say a word about it.

A more likely probability will be that the person in question will commit suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head, twice, with a .22 ....... on a railroad track.

June 17, 2006, 05:05 AM
And I do absolutely agree that they will expand the bill. It works both ways. We will argue, "The last AWB had no effect on crime." THEY will argue, "The last AWB had no effect on crime, so the new one has to be tougher." They will say that the last bill was so watered down it was ineffective.

John Kerry et al has already sponsored legislation banning and confiscating ANY weapon based on the receiver of ANY weapon ever procured for police or military use. This would mean, my dad's Ruger single-six is gone, it's a peacemaker. I thought his Remington 760 in .257 roberts would be spared, but a couple of years ago, Remington released pretty much the same rifle, chambered for .223, and accepting AR mags for LE use. That one is gone too. The only guns I can think of that would escape are dedicated bird and skeet over and unders. Pretty much everything else has been at least tested by police at one time or another.

It also would cease to recognize sports that are based on combat. No more IDPA and IPSC, etc.

The little stick didn't work for them. They have to make the 'problem' much bigger and more comprehensive. They will alert the ignorant public to the fact that people like my dad carry weapons intended for police, with his single-six. (Filled with birdshot shells for rattlesnakes while he's fishing.)

Low Key
June 17, 2006, 06:21 AM
Hillary may run in 08, but I don't see that she has much of a chance. She's pissed of the Dems because she is trying to look like a moderate to expand her potential voter base, conservatives know that she is evil and won't vote for her, and women as a general rule don't like other women so she hasn't many votes from that group either. Make no mistake though, if she had the power she wants, she would have ALL firearms outlawed and confiscated no matter what the dollar cost.

Keep your eyes open for wolves in sheeps clothing in 08, (Mccain). Politicians know that firearms liberties are an issue that can win or lose elections and they'll try to fool you about where they really stand. Look at the NRA ratings of the candidates and research the candidates voting history to see where they really stand.

June 17, 2006, 06:42 AM
I think any new legislation devoted to restriction will focus on ammunition.

Clues are out there. During the AWB debate Ted had his pathetic tirade over cop killing sniper bullets. Various bliss ninny organization are now talking bullets vs evil assault rifles. Focus word is sniper. As we type the UN is in overdrive and ammo is a focus of attention.

They failed focusing on arms. I predict the next offensive will be over ammo. Better put, the focus will be over performance as opposed to cosmetics of the AWB.

Brett Bellmore
June 17, 2006, 08:55 AM
I see no evidence that Democrats have given up on gun control as a goal. The've merely figured out that it's counterproductive for them to run on it. Should they manage to get a majority again, they'll try to ban guns again.

However, I expect them to be a bit more subtle about it next time. Repealing the Lawful Commerce act, and then letting the tort lawyers sue the industry into submission. Making firearms subject to the consumer product safety commision, so they can be ruled by *bureaucrats* to be dangerous products. They'll go for deniability, opening the door for people who don't face reelection to do the dirty work.

Brett Bellmore
June 17, 2006, 09:10 AM
Look at the NRA ratings of the candidates and research the candidates voting history to see where they really stand.

LOL! The NRA ratings of candidates are only useful as a guide to see if the NRA wants you to vote for a candidate, NOT where they really stand. There's a pretty heavy thumb on that scale sometimes, when the NRA thinks they need to avoid pissing off an incumbant they probably can't defeat, or offers to "tweak" a legislator's rating if they support a particular amendment

I still recall way back when John Dingel, NRA board member, voted for the assault weapon ban, and instead of a letter grade in the candidate ratings, they gave a phone number you could call to hear somebody make excuses.

And they weren't even very good excuses. :rolleyes:

Personally, I rely on the GOA ratings, they're more objective.

June 17, 2006, 09:46 AM
I'll agree with several other posters on a couple of (seemingly) contradictory points...

The Dems WON'T make an issue on gun rights during the elections...they got clobbered before, almost exclusively on that issue.

HOWEVER, if they DO get in power, they will, at some point, press for a new AWB. And it will be MUCH more restrictive than the previous one, and MAY NOT include a Grandfather clause. And will probably be more inclusive of things like .50 BMG.

Gonna buy stock in companies that make and sell PVC pipe, as I think sales will skyrocket at some point:evil:

June 17, 2006, 11:25 AM
What comes, comes. With potential changes to the gun laws are coming many other social and political changes that will affect how people respond to firearms legislation. What I'm saying is that people in the year AD 2012 in America may not be so agreeable to laying down their arms in a time of "uncertainty" on all fronts.

June 17, 2006, 11:29 AM
PVC and dessicant. We have LOTS of wide open spaces where I live. :)

June 17, 2006, 11:30 AM
Hillary may run in 08, but I don't see that she has much of a chance. She's pissed of the Dems because she is trying to look like a moderate to expand her potential voter base,

Remember that Dems will NOT run on what they believe in. Rather, they have to try to "trick" voters into voting for the. Think back to the "War Hero" with his elusive "plan" who seemed to either take both sides of an issue or to take neither side of the issue "yet". The left understands that their beliefs are not supported by the majority of the country that is why they won't come out and run on there own parties platform. If you doubt this look at how they have to rely on judges to create new laws or overturn existing legislation in order to circumvent legislation created through majority belief. They know that the Hilda Beast will do what she has to and say what she has to in order to get her boots in the door and then will slam her socialist fist our throats. She isn't pandering to conservatives or liberals she is pandering to undecided independents. Libs will vote for her while hoping that overconfident conservatives stay home and that moderate independents are willing to belive in her.

June 17, 2006, 01:46 PM
I stop and think very hard that a dem win in 08 might eventually be a damn good thing. Part of me hopes that they do indeed push, and push hard, for a bigger gun ban than they did in 93/94, because then some of these blase' gun owners might wake up and smell the non-existent gunpowder and become more outspoken.

It's that or it might well be the spark that sets off the inferno so we can cleanse the nation once again. So many people have lost the 'big picture' of what freedom was supposed to be that I feel they need a very sharp reminder. :banghead:

June 17, 2006, 04:37 PM
I've gotta agree with DKSuddeth. I'm hoping for the worst, it's time to really rattle some cages.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun law changes in 08?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!