[Blueduck]

I know we all hoping and voting for the best but...

If the ban is replaced by a permanent one in '04 do you think if would be likely or even economically feasable for international manufactureres to start making and selling single stack versions of their most popular guns?

Not sure but I believe Beretta and SIG have had single stack versions of the 92FS and 226 available, but what about Glock, HK etc.. Since it's only gonna hold ten anyway, worth it to trim the designs down some for just the U.S. market???

[CWL]

The gun makers have always been influenced by/responded to the magazine capacity ban. We already have much smaller pistols today as a direct result of the Ban.

Before the ban, big guns with lots of capacity were most popular. People loved "wondernines".

After the ban, there has already been a trend toward smaller, more compact handguns which held only 10-rounds, or less. We have the emergence and popularity of guns like Kel-tec, Kahr, etc. who probably wouldn't be around if there wasn't a capacity ban. Other manufacturers such as Glock introduced smaller pistols with only 10-round capacity. Another beneficiary of the Ban was 1911-style singlestack pistols and the re-emergence of .45ACP popularity.

[sonoranjack]

I would like to see single stack 10 rd mag 9mm full sized pistol regardless of the mag ban.

[Sox]

Thankfully, things are headed in the slimline direction already. Glock is supposed to bring out a single stack fullsize .45 at some point. HK is going to offer the P2000 in a thin subcompact.

[Mark IV Series 80]

If the mag-ban does become permanent......

do you think we'll see more "align sights.... press" and less "spray and pray" ?

[3 gun]

I don't see anyone making a single stack model of standard pistol. Many of the full size guns have a solid LE base. It's much more cost effective to make 10 rd mags. The ban did help drive the move to larger caliber smaller pistols.

If you were hoping for a single stack Beretta 92, don't get your hopes up.

[jc2]

If you were hoping for a single stack Beretta 92, don't get your hopes up.
There already is a single stack Beretta 92 and has been for years.

[IRock]

You are not going to be able to get ten rounds in any single stack magazine other than the very small calibers. Unless the gun has a very long grip it will still need to be a double stack magazine to hold ten rounds.

[Lone_Gunman]

quote:

"If you were hoping for a single stack Beretta 92, don't get your hopes up."


LOL... let me guess... you work in a gun store somewhere?

[biere]

Current designs will not change since it is cheaper to make 10 round magazines than change a gun completely.

But the new releases like the glock 36 will be made with the current laws in mind.

I think the world and police markets will keep the big capacity stuff rolling off the production lines without a problem.

Regardless of what happens I expect more small firearms to be produced due to all the ccw laws currently around.

Make the law permanent, and watch revolvers take off.

[Croyance]

Since the Ban coincided with many states passing concealed carry laws, it is hard to say which had more influence in the down-sizing of guns.

[WESHOOT2]

The ban.

[antsi]

< The gun makers have always been influenced by/responded to the magazine capacity ban. We already have much smaller pistols today as a direct result of the Ban. >

That is one factor.

Also, remember, at about the same time the Klintonistas were pushing the ban through congress, the NRA was pushing shall-issue CCL through state legislatures. The subsequent increase in carry-friendly states led to more citizen carry, and thus more citizens looking for small easily concealable pistols.

[Boats]

Hey 3 Gun!

The Beretta in question is called the 92 Compact L, Type M. It's a mouthful and a handful at the same time. Its a chopped 8+1 true single stack 9mm available in black and stainless models.

[BHP9]

The ban is permanent. It was designed to be permanent from the beginning

No law that has been in force for 10 years will ever be overturned. It would be political suicide for any politician to vote to overturn it. Bush himself is in favor of it and he is a conservative.

Basically what will happen is that when it becomes official many other far worse provisions will be added to it by the ant-gun crowd because they know that the ban must be made official and that anything they throw into it will stand an excellent chance of becoming permanent along with all the original provisions.

The nightmare is just beginning folks so if you have been putting off buying that favorite modern weapon get it now while it is still legal but it does not guarentee that you will not have to turn it in later to be melted down after the ban is official.

[..]

don't forget the tin foil hat either.

[Shmackey]

I'm with BHP9 on this one. The ban is not going anywhere. It would be political suicide to even mention one's support of legal full-cap mags. If the ban sunsets I will eat my Kimber, piece by piece, lubing it with just enough Militec so it slides down nice and easy.

I will also gladly eat anyone else's single-stack weapons. Send them my way and I'll send pics of my gun-dinner.

[ENC]

Shmackey

I would choose your words carefully. From my understanding the ban will sunset, that is written into it. The question is will they come with a law to replace it. You will need alot of militech.

[Blueduck]

No law that has been in force for 10 years will ever be overturned. How long was prohibition in ??? ;)

But ENC is correct the law will sunset in 04, it has no legal effect after that. The only question is whether a brand new law will come from congress and be signed by the president or not. Congressional situation looks at least a little promising-the white house a different story entirely :mad:

[Shmackey]

I would choose your words carefully. From my understanding the ban will sunset, that is written into it. The question is will they come with a law to replace it. You will need alot of militech.

OK, if we're talking semantics, then the ban will "sunset" and you'll have a brand-new law that says you can't have full-cap mags. Either way, I'm confident that I'll never know what Militec-1 tastes like.

[Hkmp5sd]

Welcome! Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 banned the manufacture and import of a certain class of guns defined by Congress as "Assault Weapons." These firearms were categorized as such by certain identifying features, namely cosmetic and ergonomic features that present a military-like appearance, but have absolutely no effect on lethality. The act also bans so-called "high capacity" magazines. The provisions of this Act are scheduled to terminate in 2004.

The goal of this organization is to nurture a grass roots movement of honest citizens who want to make certain that this Act does indeed sunset, as it should. The focus of our website is to educate gun owners and non-gun owners alike with information about the history and provisions of the Assault Weapons Ban, and gun control in general. We are not working to just end this ban, but also to prohibit any further Federal action in this regard.

Please take a few moments to visit the forums, register, read the materials, and then get involved! We need your help and support in asking your local gun store or gun show to post the banners and flyers, and to write letters. This is about you helping to preserve your rights, so let's get started!

See where your congressmen stand on a ban renewal... monitor the likelyhood of the ban sunsetting without renewal... be sure to check out our Congressional Scoreboard!

AWbansunset.com (http://www.awbansunset.com/)

[Blueduck]

Not to hi-jack my own thread but frankly while I believe we should be working against the ban and voting accordingly I really think it will come down to current events at the time of the actual expiration.

If everthing is going fairly well and there is some other news going on I can see it fading into oblivion without a vote. On the other hand one 17 year old Marilyn Manson fan who didn't get enough hugs from daddy with a Tec-9 going off two weeks before the vote... forget about it.

[Hkmp5sd]

Whew! Had me worried there for a moment. I actually like a few of Marilyn Manson's songs and I own a Tec-9. Luckily, I'm not 17 and my dad still hugs me. :)

But I think you are correct. It seems every time one of these votes comes up, we get another nutcase spraying bullets to seal our fate. I'm suprised that the "Beltway Sniper" gun isn't getting more media airtime.

[BevrFevr]

Big M. Manson Fan here.

good thing I don't have a tech9! But look out, Daddy wasn't much into the hug thing. Hell I guess I'm just a powder keg waiting to explode.

M Manson doesn't cause people to freak out any more than guns cause crime.

I personally think Shoes cause gun crimes.

ALL these nutcase shooters seem to be wearing SHOES! I think it is a Nike conspiracy Or maybe its the rubber companies putting something evil in the SOULS (I mean soles).

Some people are just funny!

-bevr

"I wish I was a hand grenade that never stopped exploding" -Marylin Manson

[91101]

Here's a little something that you guys may want to get behind an support...

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 153

To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


January 7, 2003
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL

To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL HARASSMENT PERIOD.

Public Law 103-159 is hereby replaced, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL GUN BAN.

Title XI of Public Law 103-322 is hereby repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such title are restored or revived as if such title had not been enacted.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION.

(a) Section 201 of title 11 of Public Law 90-618 is amended by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes,' and `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.'

(b) Public Law 90-351, as amended, is amended as follows:

(1) In section 902, strike `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes,' `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes,' `a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,' `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community,' `determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes and,' `(A) determined by the Secretary to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B),' `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,' and `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,'.

(2) Strike `lawful sporting purposes' and insert in lieu thereof `lawful purposes'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.
END

[DAL]

If Bush doesn't want to become a one-term wonder like his daddy, he'd better support ALL gun owners, not just hunters. Gun owners helped put him where he is; let's hope he doesn't forget that. Not that it's his fault, but the economy isn't doing so hot and he'll need all of the help he can get in 2004.
DAL

[BevrFevr]

DAL,

You are right on the money! Considering he just squeaked by with our support he had better do some 2nd Amend supporting.

91101,

Good info, who do we call and write? I mean I'll tell the reps from my state but where is Mr. Paul from?



Looking forward to seeing the sunset!

Thanks -Bevr

[91101]

BevrFevr: Rep. Ron Paul is a Republican form Texas's 14th district. Here's a link to his US House web page.

http://www.house.gov/paul/

[3 gun]

I'll stand by my first post. You won't see a standard, full size Beretta 92 made as a single stack. That they would make a compact isn't a surprise, that it is a true single stack (not allowing the use of a standard mag) is a surprise. No, I don't work in a gun shop but I do know none of the ones I've been in has had one. And if they did I don't know if I could stop myself from laughing.

[BigG]

Heck, I remember when the autos only held one or two more rounds than the revos and that was a quite a big selling point back then. When you got a Colt Super 38 holding NINE rounds you felt you had a lot of firepower in your hands.

[wanderinwalker]

Well, if the ban becomes permanent, I will switch over to 1911/.45ACP type pistols for certain, and not have to worry about magazine capacity or pistol size issues at all.

[sonoranjack]

I carry a second gen Glock 17 w/ hi-cap mags. If shooting .45 ever becomes affordable for me. I plan on getting a 1911 single stack. If I want more fire power I'll carry more mags.

[WonderNine]

The Future of the Ban



The Current State of Gun Control in Politics (in a nutshell)

After the Democrat's stunning defeat in the 1994 elections following the passing of the "assault weapons" ban, the party began to rethink their strong anti-gun stance. Though the issue of gun control once was an effective campaign issue for the Democratic Party, it has fallen out of favor over the past several years. After Al Gore's defeat in 2000, largely due to his anti-gun positions, Democrats have practically abandoned the issue altogether.



The 1996 Repeal Vote

Fulfilling a campaign promise made to constituents, House Republicans agreed to bring a repeal of the ban to the floor for a vote, which passed easily (239-173) with strong support from Republicans AND Democrats. Democrat leadership, acutely aware of the negative effect the support of the ban had on their party's House members in the '94 elections, reluctantly gave Democrats "permission" to vote for the repeal if they felt needed to.

The vote was mostly symbolic, as it did not have much chance for being passed in the Senate, and would have certainly been vetoed by President Clinton.



The Sunset

One of the concessions that was needed in order to get the ban passed in 1994 was a "sunset clause" that set an automatic expiration of the ban 10 years following the enacting of the bill into law. This will occur in September 2004. This is significant, and is sometimes misunderstood. If Congress does nothing, the ban will expire. No repeal or other congressional action is necessary for this to happen. In order for the ban to continue, legislation must be passed through both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

As a side note, to learn more about the positive effects that sunset clauses have on curbing ineffective and/or outdated legislation, take a look at this report from the Cato Institute. The ban on "assault weapons" is a perfect example of the appropriateness of sunset clauses. Without it, we would have an uphill battle – a STEEP uphill battle – to get rid of this ridiculous law.



How We Stand

While it is not a certainty that we will be successful in preventing the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban from being renewed (or, heaven forbid, replaced with something even worse!), things are looking very much in our favor:

Democrats took a beating in 1994 due to the vote on the ban. Clinton himself said that his party lost 20 - 21 seats in the House because of it, giving up control to Republicans in the process.
Politicians seem to have shied away from gun control over the past few years. It continues to be a losing issue for Democrats. Have they finally learned their lesson?
The House passed a repeal of the ban in 1996. Many Democrats crossed over and voted for this repeal, and it passed handily.
Republicans have control of Congress. While this by itself does not guarantee success, it is nonetheless a positive for us.
On the other hand, we cannot afford to be complacent on this issue, thinking that we can achieve our goal without active involvement. Consider the following:

There are still quite a few members of the House and Senate who are rabidly anti-gun (such as Schumer, Feinstein, and Conyers). These people will fight tooth and nail.
The ban represents the very essence of anti-gun lobbyist organizations such as the Violence Policy Center, and the Brady Campaign. Since a defeat of the ban represents a defeat of the very core of their cause, they will pull out all the stops to prevent this from happening.
Supporters of the ban will likely attempt to steer the debate away from "renew vs. expire" in favor of "renew vs. replace" (with a much more restrictive ban). In other words, letting it expire will simply not be an option... the debate will be framed so as to make a renewal of the existing ban the "pro-gun" option.
The rhetoric will be intense and incredibly shrill. It will be "victims on parade", with countless family members of shooting victims being tastelessly exploited for the purpose of advancing the extremist agenda of a small number of politicians.
Presenting effective counter-arguments is difficult. Though our position is solidly based on logic and truth, supporters of the ban can simply throw out emotionally loaded one-liners which are completely devoid of fact. In addition to being reckless and irresponsible, it makes the task of presenting our side of the argument very difficult.


The Bottom Line

If a replacement ban were voted on in the Senate, there is a chance it would pass. If it reached the President's desk, he would probably sign it. In the House of Representatives, however, the ban has a much tougher road ahead, and this is where our best chances for success are. For an in-depth illustration of these factors, take a look at our AW Ban Scoreboard.

Republicans generally are pro-gun rights, so we can assume that the leadership in the House will not go out of their way to bring a renewal or replacement bill to the floor unless incredible pressure is brought to bear. Because regaining control of Congress will be a top priority for Democrats in 2004, and they are no doubt acutely aware of the blow dealt to them in the past on this issue, they may not want to risk pushing for a renewal.

This would be a best-case scenario for us... majority party has no interest in the issue, minority party is afraid of it. Neither wants it to come up and force them to publicly take a position on it. Both would prefer that it simply be ignored, and remain bottled up in some dungeon committee.

The real bottom line is this: the more intelligently written, reasonable sounding letters our congressmen receive from us, the greater the chance the above will happen.



The future of the ban is up to you.


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

[Justin]

As an integral part of the 94 law, wasn't a study commissioned to look at the effectiveness of the law? Seems to me I read somewhere that the conclusions drawn by this study are quite damning of the 94 ban. Anyone got a source?

[bsf]

Justin,

I apologize for the delay. I have only recently begun visiting THR. In March of 1999 the National Institute of Justice released the report you mention. It is titled Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/173405.htm) I read the report. I thought the study was inconclusive. It is stated near the end of the report that "A followup study of longer terms impacts of the ban and effects of other provisions of Title XI is underway and is expected to be released in 2000". I contacted NIJ in September 2002 about the follow-up report mentioned at the end of this first report. The information specialist I conversed with could not locate the follow-up. She suggested I contact the Urban Institute. The two authors, Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper, worked there at the time the report was written. I neglected to continue my search, but today I will renew my search for information on the “follow-up” report. I will post the information if I learn anything new.

[bsf]

I just found the full original report as released by the Urban Institute.

Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf)