MBRs Legally Endagered?


Kind of Blued
March 30, 2008, 06:15 AM
I've been trying to form a collection of endangered rifles "just in case" and I've managed two ARs and an AK.

I don't spend much time in the Rifle forum, and a search gave me nothing, but I am curious if I should attempt to secure an MBR or two in the next year. I heard the Garand was in danger, so I assume my true love, the M1A would be too. An AR-10 or a 24-26" .308 AR Flattop would be nice too.

If any good resourceful threads have already been developed on this, I'd appreciate if you could point me in their direction. I'm also making this a poll just because I think they're fun and I like the pretty colors. Also, more practice voting on guns and legality.

Thanks in advance!

If you enjoyed reading about "MBRs Legally Endagered?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
March 30, 2008, 09:56 AM
"MBR" and "Assault Rifles" are more functions of the cartridge fired than anything else.

(Yes, I know a true assault rifle must have select fire capability, etc. etc. etc.)

During the last ban, caliber was not a consideration. A semi-auto 9mm "military-style weapon was just as much in danger as the .308 HK-91 I had.

So, short answer, yes... MBRs will not be immune to the same criteria and restrictions as an intermediate or pistol caliber firearm IF a ban was pushed through.

We have to make sure that ban doesn't happen.

-- John

Kind of Blued
March 30, 2008, 10:02 AM
I understand that caliber plays little to no role in a potential ban.

I also understand that the characteristics that DO play a role in banning a specific firearm are NOT found on MBRs for the most part. I'm speaking of the "scary looking" but not necessarily "more deadly" barrel shrouds bayonet mounts, pistol grips, collapsible stocks, etc. Given the lack of such characteristics on an M1 Garand, for example, I just don't understand WHY the M1 would be in danger (well, I do if I play ignorant). However, another thing that I understand is that a new ban would probably be written very differently than the last one, and while still ineffective at reducing crime, I am, in fact, asking you to speculate on how it may be worded.

March 30, 2008, 10:20 AM

I understand. I was putting in the "qualifier" statements not so much to you as I was to other posters who would want to correct me.

Thanks for clarifying... let's see...

Short answer, they would pass the EXACT ban that that had in place in 1994 with no sunset clause if they can get away with it.

Most antigun people use that ban as an example of what they liked, and bemoaned its expiration. I think that they'd save the work and just reinstate that if they can.

Either that, or shove through McCarthy's HR1022.

Also, the M1 most likely would not be affected. It just doesn't have enough evil features.

-- John

March 30, 2008, 10:30 AM
If you think about it, they didn't just ban weapons, they banned magazines with more than a 10 round capacity. I'd say anything that can accept a magazine with more than 10 round capacity (virtually all semiautos, if you can find an aftermarket mag with more than 10 rounds for it) would be considered fair game. Here's the issue. If they want to make it more than a cosmetic ban, they have to go after something that has to do with the function of the weapon. It would be more difficult to ban the semi-automatic action outright (especially if Heller goes our way) but they may think it would be easier to go for magazine capacity, especially detachable mags. I'm not saying it makes any more sense than anything else the antis do, just that they'll go after anything they can get.

Also look for the ban on "cop-killer ammo" to rear its ugly head, as well as taxes on ammo, microstamping, serializing and all that assorted nonsense. We aren't done with this fight by a long shot.

March 30, 2008, 11:14 AM
Is MBR a new term? What is it?

March 30, 2008, 11:18 AM
I don't think any of them are going to get banned, unless its in the next 6 months or so to match the ban on the imports, but that is not a voting option.

March 30, 2008, 11:31 AM
Is MBR a new term? What is it?

Main Battle Rifle, as opposed to assault rifle or submachine gun. The main difference is that it fires a full powered rifle cartridge like the 7.62 NATO, 30.06, 7.62x54R or 8mm Mauser. Some MBR's are bolt action as in the Mauser and the Mosin, others are semi auto as in the Garand or select fire as in the M-14 and FN. Assault rifles by definition are select fire weapons firing a cartridge of intermediate power so as to be more controllable on full auto(AK's and AR's, for example). One of the downfalls of the M-14 was that it was difficult to control on auto. Submachine guns typically fire a pistol caliber cartridge as in the Thompson (.45 cal.) or the MP5 (9mm).

These days, the antis would call the semi auto only version of the 7.62 FN an "assault weapon" because of the pistol grip, bayonet lug and use of detachable magazines while the M1A (a civilian copy of the M-14 with no full auto capability) is not. Clearly their terminology has nothing to do with the actual function of the weapon on the battlefield.

If you enjoyed reading about "MBRs Legally Endagered?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!