AWB Stays put....What are the new restrictions?


PDA






Kaxter
January 4, 2004, 02:29 PM
What will be the new restrictions on firearms if the dreadful AWB stick with us? I keep hearing that it will get far worse, but I cant find any information about what will get worse than it already is.

I have searched:

AWB much worse
AWB far worse
AWB new restrictions

And several other phrases, but came up with nothing. Any information would be appreciated.

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB Stays put....What are the new restrictions?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Justin
January 4, 2004, 02:33 PM
I wrote up an analysis of the new ban a few months back. Feel free to take a look:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23494&highlight=Ban

It ain't pretty. Call and write your congresscritters.

Here's a copy of the analysis. More info at the link above.
_____________________________________________
The implications of the 2003 Assault Weapon for American Gun Owners

A new and much more far-reaching ban on firearms has been proposed in the House of Representatives. The purpose of this document is to give a fairly concise overview of the newly proposed law, and how it will affect gun-owning Americans. Unfortunately, much of the wording of the proposal, HR 2038, does nothing but modify parts of the original ban. In order to get a decent idea of what the whole picture looks like you have to cross reference HR 2038 with Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Sec. 922 of the United States code. For the purposes of this document, HR 2038 was referenced from http://www.thomas.loc.gov, and Sec. 922 was referenced from the US Code Collection available at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu.

This newly proposed law is a much more sweeping piece of legislation that will have a far-reaching effect much beyond the so-called ‘black rifle crowd.’ No one, from shotgun hunters to Olympic shooting competitors is left untouched. Those who wrote this legislation are engaging in nothing short of Orwellian doublethink. They have taken the original definition of what an ‘assault weapon’ is, completely discarded it, and are now reinventing it to cover a much more broad swath of firearms.

1) Hunters

Most of the time legislators attempt to paint themselves as pro-gun by associating themselves with hunters, and pointing out that they would never attempt to take away anyone’s duck gun. Time to wake up. Under the newly proposed ban, any and all semiautomatic shotguns will be banned that have any of the following:

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

Yes, I know that state law requires your shotgun to be plugged to a 3-round capacity. But since it’s not a permanent fix, you just lost your right to own many autoloading shotguns on the market. Admittedly, hunters are the least affected by this new law, but they are affected nonetheless. What’s worse, this bill would outlaw many shotgun configurations that are well suited to home defense.

2) Competition shooters

Competition shooters are not left out, and the proposals are such that it hits pretty much every competitor from High Power to IPSC to International Bullseye shooters.

A) Shotguns
Since pretty much all autoloading shotguns are toast with this bill, don’t expect to be running one in an IPSC or 3 gun match.

B) Action pistol
The magazine ban is still in place. So if you’re an IDPA shooter you’ll still be limited to 10 round magazines. If you’re an IPSC shooter, you’ll be forced to pay the inflated price for standard capacity mags. Oh, and the burden of proof as to whether that magazine of yours is truly preban has been shifted from the government to you. More on this later.

C) Bullseye pistol

You think that Pardini is safe? Think again.

`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
`(i) a second pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a barrel shroud; or
`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

This exact same ban was instituted in California. When it was pointed out that high-end competition guns like the Walther GSP fell under the ban, the legislature’s response was “So what?”

D) Rifle competition

Be it 3 gun or high power rifle shooting, these sports will now be essentially closed to any and all new comers. The AR15, FAL, and AR10 are mentioned by name, and the features listed all but put the M1 Garand and M1A on the endangered species list. Also, those with fixed-magazine guns are not left untouched. If you have a rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you have an assault rifle. So you can no longer skirt the law by attaching those 30-round fixed magazines to an SKS, and might, in fact, be committing a felony if you try to sell that rifle. Also, please note that in the original bill an assault weapon is defined as one with the ability to take detachable magazines, and includes at least two so-called 'evil features' (bayonet lug, flash hider, etc.) In this law an 'assault weapon' is defined as being semiautomatic with the ability to take detachable magazines and only including one "evil" feature. What they are doing is to redefine a genre of weaponry that doesn't exist in any professional sense among gun designers or the gun owning public.

Here’s the real kicker to the whole thing, though: The sporting purposes clause is nowhere near ironclad. In fact, it reads:

A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'

In other words, just because a particular firearm is suited for a particular sport is no guarantee that it is suited for a particular sport, at least as far as can and will be determined by some lackey working in the AG’s office, who undoubtedly has far more insight into the shooting sports than any of us. If a particular sporting weapon is derived from a military design, then it is considered to be suspect.

Of course, the above is only in relation to firearms and whether or not they are particularly suited to a given sport. As far as one’s right to self-defense and the use of a firearm thereof, you’re out of luck. By the way, if you’re still reading this, you’ve just gotten through the good news.

3) Elimination of the sunset.

It is what it says it is. The new law will have no sunset. We either kill this thing now, or fight a much harder fight in the future.

4)Repealing prior exemptions in the 1994 law.

Got a rifle/shotgun/pistol that you want to sell? Better check with the law first. If it falls under the nebulous and ever-changing definition of what an assault weapon is, you’ll have to transfer the gun through a dealer. That’s right, all guns are equal, but some are more equal than others. It will become illegal to transfer one of these firearms through a private transaction. In other words, no, you cannot sell your rifle to your next-door neighbor who has been your best friend since you were both in Kindergarten. If he/she wants it, you’ll have to go through an FFL. The law states:

Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--
`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or
`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

Yes, that’s right, no more private party transactions. And it gets even better (by which I mean worse) when we get to the bit about magazines.


5) Regulation of buying/selling standard capacity magazines

Sec.7
`(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

So once you decide to sell a weapon governed by this law, you cannot sell any pre-ban magazines with it. Please note that this also applies to firearms with fixed magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Doing so will result in punishment-

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(z) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

So basically, if you decide to sell a semi-automatic firearm, you are prohibited from selling any pre-ban magazines with it, lest you get tossed in the clink for a few years.

6) Strengthening the ban on ‘large capacity ammunition feeding devices.’

Are you a cop or law-enforcement officer? In the old law there were a few hoops you could jump through and if you were lucky enough to have a cool boss, you could even keep those ‘high capacity’ magazines that you bought (with your own money) for your service sidearm. Not anymore. The new law reads:

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title is amended--

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C);

Ok, so that sounds like a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo. Striking? Subparagraph C? redesignating this as that? What?
The old sub paragraph C from the original 1994 bill reads as follows:
the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement;
In other words, once those involved with law enforcement retire, they are considered to be just as untrustworthy as the rest of the civilian population.

B) The burden of proof shifted regarding magazine possession is shifted from gov’t to individual-

(C) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before September 13, 1994, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before September 13, 1994.'.

Basically a gun dealer is now prohibited from selling a pre-ban magazine, unless he first certifies it with the AG’s office. So while it would still be legal to own pre-ban magazines, it is now a major hassle for both the dealer and customer to get them. This will drive the prices up even further, or cause many gun dealers to stop selling pre-ban magazines all together.

This particular part of the law stinks even worse because it shifts the burden of proof from the government to the owner of a magazine. In other words, according to the old law, the government would have to prove that the magazine you have is indeed a pre-ban or illegal post ban. Now that has been switched around. It is now up to the accused to prove that a given magazine from his/her collection is indeed a pre-ban. This is called ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and last time I checked is illegal according to the US Constitution.

Insanity, it has been said, can be defined as repeating the same thing and expecting different results. The 1994 ban is a proven failure at reducing the rate of violent crime. Instead, it created a miasma of confusing rules and regulations that are nearly impossible to follow unless one is well versed with the letter of the law. It established an ever-changing definition of what an ‘assault weapon’ is, and has relegated the American gun owner to the rank of a second-class citizen. We must fight not only the expansion of this bill, but the reauthorization of it, too.

edited to incorporate a correction suggested by Esky.

________________

Remember folks, George Bush said that he would reauthorize the ban if it reaches his desk. Thus far into his first presidential term, he has not vetoed one bill to cross his desk. If you want this thing to die, make sure your congressthings know where you stand on this.

BTR
January 4, 2004, 03:44 PM
I believe there are at least 2 versions of the bill, one in the house and senate. The one mentioned by Justin is extremely draconian, and apparently is not expected to pass. However, Feinstein's is just like the one we have now, with two exceptions- there is no sunset to the law, and it bans import of preban hicaps. This is apparently the one Bush "will sign." This is the one to be worried about, I think.

Justin
January 4, 2004, 04:10 PM
There are indeed two versions of the bill, as there are with all bills, there is a house version and a senate version.

In this case, there are two in the House, HR 2038, which would basically end the gun culture as we know it, and HR 143, which is a renewal with a side order of expansion for the current law.

So in the House it's a choice of Bad Cop/Evil Cop, and in the Senate there is S 1431, which is the Senate version of HR 143.

Bear in mind that even the less evil version of the bill outlaws, by name, a lot more guns than were in the original 1994 ban, including the M1 Carbine and the Armscore 30 BG, a pump-action shotgun.

Copies of these bills can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov
Just do a search on any of the bill numbers or the term 'assault weapon'

DMK
January 4, 2004, 08:37 PM
This is called ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and last time I checked is illegal according to the US Constitution. I hear this all the time and I'd like to agree. Where exactly is it stated in the Constitution that a citizen is innocent until proven guilty?

Justin
January 4, 2004, 09:02 PM
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

greyhound
January 4, 2004, 09:03 PM
there is no sunset to the law

Worst comes to worst, (and I have written all of my Senators/Reps [gun grabbing leftists, all :banghead: ]), is there any chance the AWB could be renewed:fire: with another "sunset"?

I'm just askin' is all. Worst case scenario and all that....

I have not given up. My Senators/Reps will all vote for any gun ban regardless of letters (I try) but what about those "on the fence"?

TallPine
January 4, 2004, 09:08 PM
Worst case scenario
You find out what "Molon Labe" really means ....

Zedicus
January 4, 2004, 11:50 PM
Unfortunitly a very accurate post Tallpine.....:uhoh:

When are the gun grabbers going to get it throught there thick skulls that bans on anything WILL NOT keep whatever is banned out of the hands of criminals?:banghead:

twoblink
January 5, 2004, 12:04 AM
Zedicus,

hate to say it, but you are making the assumption they WANT to keep the items out of the hands of criminals..

If they did, they'd arm citizens...

MAURICE
January 5, 2004, 12:16 AM
If you have a rifle with a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds you have an assault rifle.

Thats, right son. Im sorry but were gonna have to take away your Marlin Model 60 EVIL ASSAULT RIFLE.

And I second what Tallpine said.
Molon Labe

Edited to correct typo.

SIGarmed
January 5, 2004, 01:10 AM
This has really been ticking me off. The fact that the first dumb laws accomplish nothing but removing our rights, employing a whole group of government workers on our dime, oh and requiring elitist liberals to get a panty change.

The fact that smart criminals love the fact that it makes bigger targets out of us.

I'm tired of writing civil letters to my leftist representatives.

I once wrote a letter to my assemblymember regarding gun control only to get a personal response back to her credit that stated "we need to stop the carnage". :mad:

Black92LX
January 5, 2004, 01:39 AM
so should i be investing in an AR prior to November???:banghead:

Moparmike
January 5, 2004, 03:07 AM
As much as I might want to show gun-grabbing leftists who are hell bent on infringing upon my inherent rights as a breathing sentient being (with tools they wont let me have I might add) the meaning of Molon Labe, I have to question as to if I really have the guts to do so. And not just myself, but a majority of gun owners as well. I dont mean to insult, but I too am guilty of a little posturing online. I will profess to be ready to take up arms when my elected 'leaders' (coming to a theater near you: RULERS) infringe upon my rights in an unprecedented fashion, but are we really?

Just some random thinking...

Treylis
January 5, 2004, 04:17 AM
Has anyone ever heard any direct rationale as to why pistols with "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip" are so evil other than aesthetics?

cpileri
January 5, 2004, 05:18 AM
Then be sure to disseminate this info widely:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=49483

basically, one to say that the Senate knew gun laws were unconstitutional for decades! And the other to say that we can't prove the current gun laws are working (except for waiting periods reducing suicides by middle-age men)- and of course what the second study doesn't say directly is, BUT WE'RE STILL SPENDING MILLIONS ON THOSE WORTHLESS LAWS.

Make sure the media and your reps know!
C-

Daedalus
January 5, 2004, 08:01 AM
Has anyone ever heard any direct rationale as to why pistols with "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip" are so evil other than aesthetics?

I guess they think that you could use the magazine as a forward grip, which is pretty ridiculous if you look at the pistol this part of the law pretty much written for.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=704847
Yeah, one hand on the pistol grip and one on the magazine is a real comfortable position and a very stable shooting platform. :rolleyes:

BHPshooter
January 5, 2004, 12:07 PM
As much as I might want to show gun-grabbing leftists who are hell bent on infringing upon my inherent rights as a breathing sentient being (with tools they wont let me have I might add) the meaning of Molon Labe, I have to question as to if I really have the guts to do so. And not just myself, but a majority of gun owners as well. I dont mean to insult, but I too am guilty of a little posturing online. I will profess to be ready to take up arms when my elected 'leaders' (coming to a theater near you: RULERS) infringe upon my rights in an unprecedented fashion, but are we really?

Just some random thinking...

A very interesting and honest post. You're not alone, the thought of having to scream that phrase scares the piss outta me. Mostly because my family would bow to the law, and if I came out shooting, I'd be immortalized as an extremist psycho in their eyes.

I don't know how I'd deal with the fear or pressure to give in to the law.

At any rate, I guess I'd better stock up on prebans now. And that M4 I've been wanting might just have to come home soon.

Wes

TallPine
January 5, 2004, 12:53 PM
Well, my kids will be 18 next summer, and I am pretty much an outcast with most of my family anyway.

I don't plan to hand over anything.

If one of these new bills passes, then I won't be paranoid any more - they really will be out to get me. :D

jojosdad
January 5, 2004, 03:35 PM
If you don't have the time to write using pen and paper this link makes it easy: http://congress.org/congressorg/home/

labgrade
January 5, 2004, 03:58 PM
"1) Hunters

Most of the time legislators attempt to paint themselves as pro-gun by associating themselves with hunters, and pointing out that they would never attempt to take away anyone’s duck gun. Time to wake up. Under the newly proposed ban, any and all semiautomatic shotguns will be banned that have any of the following:


(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds"

Far as I'm aware, most shotguns don't come with this feature.

Somewhat of a "spin," as far as Im concerned, BUT accurate, nonetheless. Still, I find it "leading."

& please, don't even go there as far as where I stand re standrad cap mags, et al.

AFA the main thread states & I'd agree wholeheartedly.

"They would never ... take away anyone's duck gun ... "

Nope.

Other than the evil "scoped-sighted sniper rifle," the "duck gun" must be next - as it is one of The Most Effecctive close-in defensive/offensive weapons there is.

Pebcac
January 5, 2004, 04:04 PM
To be perfectly honest, I can't see myself running out of my house screaming anything looking for battle because I just saw the new AWB pass on C-SPAN. 1776-style stuff wasn't easy to organize back then, and sure won't be today, when average folks are sitting in their comfy living rooms thinking, "Hey, they didn't ban my old huntin' rifle. I don't need no machine gun."

But I'm not turning anything in, either. I can see myself part of a crowd on a legislature's front steps, with a newly-banned, 50-year old M1 Carbine slung over my shoulder. Unfortunately, this won't be a civil-rights issue that will garner much public support.

What I see happening is a straight extension of the current law making it permanent, without the extra bans. After all, it won't be hard to remove from the bill language banning a firearm being sold by the CMP.

Langenator
January 5, 2004, 04:06 PM
Most shotguns don't come with a tube that holds over 5 rounds, but it's very easy to make them that way. 3 Gun isn't hunting, but it is a shooting sport, and I've seen (at least in magazines and on TV) shotguns used there with mag tubes so long they looked like some sort of medeviel pole arm.

And who's to say that I don't want to be able to swap out the long anti-duck barrel on my Rem 1187 for a short. anti-intruder one, put on a longer mag tube, and call it my home defense gun?

nico
January 5, 2004, 04:34 PM
I wrote the following letter to my senators and representative using the link jojosdad posted:

I am writing to you as a concerned voter and with the realization that you could care less what I think. I realize that, as a democrat, you will most likely support the renewal, or expansion of the useless assault weapons ban. As you should know, this law bans guns based solely on cosmetic features that have absolutely nothing to do with the firearms' performance. I implore you to do some research on your own about this issue. You will find that the CDC could find no evidence that any gun control laws have any effect on violent crime (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) and that the current assault weapons ban has done nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. History should teach you what gun advocates have known all along: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Please do not blindly rubber-stamp the renewal of the assault weapons ban or an even more absurd replacement. If you vote to renew the ban, I an assure you that I, and everyone I know, will vote against when you are up for reelection.
Molon Labe,
Nicholas [my last name]

armoredman
January 5, 2004, 04:54 PM
Congresscritters e-mailed. Tax time is very soon, so FAL or CETME will be purchased, depending on amout left after bills....Two more hicaps for the pistol will also be bought - they're still $19.99 from cdnn....:)

jamz
January 5, 2004, 04:56 PM
President, written to.

Senators, written to.

Congress-critters, written to.

Who else? :)

Langenator
January 5, 2004, 05:05 PM
Newspaper editors.

jamz
January 5, 2004, 05:41 PM
Good call.

Treylis
January 5, 2004, 07:09 PM
Daedalus:

Remember, you also have to be spray-firing Teflon-coated cop-killer bullets from the hip into a schoolyard full of innocent children, so I'm sure stability--other than mental, hah--is not high on the list. ;-)

If you enjoyed reading about "AWB Stays put....What are the new restrictions?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!