30 years ago, the Clinton AWB was signed and enacted into law. 20 years ago, it expired.

[Miami_JBT]

30 Years Ago Today, The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban Was Signed Into Law

Gather round, folks, because today we’re going to do a deep dive into gun control history. Today is the 20th anniversary of the expiration of the Clinton Assault Weapons. September 13, 1994 is a date…

www.shootingnewsweekly.com

Man, I remember it like it was yesterday. The ups and down that happened in that ten-year period was absolutely insane and incredible at the same time. How the market and industry changed, but more importantly how the political landscape changed.



Update:

Part two is now out

20 Years Ago Today, The Clinton ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Was No More

The lesson for anti-gunners and federal level Democrats should be that nothing makes an American want something more than the government telling them they can’t have it.

www.shootingnewsweekly.com

 

[Balrog]

Used normal capacity Glock 17 magazines went for about $100 each. Used normal capacity Glock 20 magazines went for $120-150. Considering inflation today, they would probably go for around $200 each if we had another assault weapons ban, assuming they were grandfathered in. More likely, today's gun banners would go for a total ban with no grandfathering, so they would likely be rendered worthless, and you would be a felon if you own one.

Remember we are really only one seat in the Senate and a few seats in the House from this happening. I can easily see a new AWB happening in the next 4 years.

 

[AlexanderA]

More likely, today's gun banners would go for a total ban with no grandfathering,

That's right. The antigunners have learned from the 1994-2004 experience, and they're unlikely to make those "mistakes" again.

On the other hand, the grandfathering and sunset provisions are what allowed the AWB to pass in the first place. Without grandfathering, the political support for an AWB would drop off sharply. Besides that, an AWB with no grandfathering would raise serious "taking" questions under the 5th Amendment. Not to mention that the Supreme Court would finally be forced to take a stand regarding the 2nd Amendment.

These are the very dilemmas that caused the 1934 NFA to be structured the way it was. In fact, the NFA may be the pattern for antigun legislation going forward. Grandfathering, registration, and tax. But of course there are orders of magnitude more semiautomatics in circulation today than there were machine guns in 1934. Plus, there's an undercurrent of noncompliance that didn't exist in 1934.

 

[hso]

It was my trigger to get involved in RKBA activism.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Used normal capacity Glock 17 magazines went for about $100 each. Used normal capacity Glock 20 magazines went for $120-150. Considering inflation today, they would probably go for around $200 each if we had another assault weapons ban, assuming they were grandfathered in. More likely, today's gun banners would go for a total ban with no grandfathering, so they would likely be rendered worthless, and you would be a felon if you own one.

Remember we are really only one seat in the Senate and a few seats in the House from this happening. I can easily see a new AWB happening in the next 4 years.

Prior to the AWB, long-guns like AR-15s while in stores. Weren't flying off store shelves. I recall after the ban was enacted. The popularity of guns like AR-15s, AKs, etc... exploded and people purchased 'em by the pallet. When the government tells the people they can't do or own something. The people do exactly what they're told by government they can't do.

Also, the ban completely ushered in the concealed carry movement. When the ban was enacted, over half the country was No/May issue when it came to carry permits. Well, by the end of the ban, that changed. And even the market changed too. All the advances we have today in concealed carry firearms, that was spurred by the ban.

Manufacturers prior to the ban were making large, full-size duty pistols for Police and Military markets. Well, the ban changed that. Suddenly, a GLOCK 17 post-ban had a lot of empty space in its mag-well. So, GLOCK got rid of the empty space and created the GLOCK 26.

I remember the media towards the end of the ban was furious that there were concealable pistols chambered in 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

And of course, the ban reshaped the entire political landscape and made gun rights a key issue.

 

[Will Munny]

I think most people have already forgotten this. And despite one of the two options for President to be elected in less than two months clearly stating that confiscation is going to happen no one seems to be paying attention.

 

[reddog81]

Prior to the AWB, long-guns like AR-15s while in stores. Weren't flying off store shelves. I recall after the ban was enacted. The popularity of guns like AR-15s, AKs, etc... exploded and people purchased 'em by the pallet. When the government tells the people they can't do or own something. The people do exactly what they're told by government they can't do.

And every heavy gun control push since then has lead to shelves being wiped cleaned and a year or 2 of manufacturers pumping out as many ARs as possible. It would be interesting to know how popular ARs would be if the 1994 AWB had never passed. I'm guessing the numbers would be a small fraction of what they are today.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Today is

 

[Miami_JBT]

I think most people have already forgotten this. And despite one of the two options for President to be elected in less than two months clearly stating that confiscation is going to happen no one seems to be paying attention.

Well, both candidates outright supported the Clinton Ban. Remember, in Trump's first presidential campaign back in 2000, he stated in his book The America We Deserve that he supported the Clinton AWB. One candidate simply doesn't hide the fact that they support gun control, the other just plays coy with the crowd.

 

[hso]

More likely, today's gun banners would go for a total ban with no grandfathering

They might "go for a total ban", but they would have to grandfather to get it through because of the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking property without compensation and the instantaneous emergency injunctions that would be filed and granted as the traffic was cleared for a fast track to SCOTUS. There the lower court injunctions on the basis of the 5th would be upheld and shortly after the filings on the 2nd.

 

[Old Dog]

I can easily see a new AWB happening in the next 4 years

Up until a couple years ago, I would've disagreed with this view. After last Tuesday night, and what I'm seeing in the polls and from the media, I can not only see it (a national AWB) happening in the next four years, I believe it could happen by March of 2025 (unless by some miracle -- and at this point, it would be a miracle of Biblical proportion) the American voters suddenly wake up and smell the coffee. I do believe there'd be grandfathering clauses, but then, look at what transpired in Canada, California, Illinois, et al when registration of previously owned covered firearms (which may also be inevitable) became required. And I'd bet registration of "high capacity" magazines might be called for as well.

And despite one of the two options for President to be elected in less than two months clearly stating that confiscation is going to happen no one seems to be paying attention.

Well, most of us are paying attention, but the fact that one candidate hasn't been called out for her obfuscation on this question (and remarkable flip-flop, "Gov. Walz and I are both gun-owners, we're not taking anyone's guns away") leads one to conclude that not enough Americans care one way or another on the issue and it's not gonna affect how they vote,.

Also, the ban completely ushered in the concealed carry movement.

Not sure I'd go that far. The ban certainly raised nationwide awareness on a lot of firearms-related issues, but there were other societal factors involved in the rise of the "shall-issue" movement. I was living in California just prior to the enactment of the AWB, nothing much changed for Californians; I moved to Washington (arguably the first "shall-issue" state) which had thousands of CPL holders and state constitution protections for RKBA in place) and with regard to legal concealed carry, nothing really changed except for the annoying unavailability of new standard capacity magazines.

Sigh. The more times change, the more things come around again. I cannot confirm nor deny that I may have paid $100 a pop for three 13-round G-23 magazines for my personally-owned pistol (back when I was issued one as a reserve officer) just to have those extra three rounds onboard.

 

[Will Munny]

Well, both candidates outright supported the Clinton Ban. Remember, in Trump's first presidential campaign back in 2000, he stated in his book The America We Deserve that he supported the Clinton AWB. One candidate simply doesn't hide the fact that they support gun control, the other just plays coy with the crowd.

Trump was a real estate manager at the time, not a politician. I don't really care what his thoughts on it were a quarter century ago. The difference is he does not support it now, 30 years after the fact, but his opponent endorses outright confiscation. The 2A isn't his biggest priority, but he knows generally where to stand on it. Anyone pretending that the two options here are remotely similar is using a serious mind altering substance.

 

[Will Munny]

They might "go for a total ban", but they would have to grandfather to get it through because of the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking property without compensation and the instantaneous emergency injunctions that would be filed and granted as the traffic was cleared for a fast track to SCOTUS. There the lower court injunctions on the basis of the 5th would be upheld and shortly after the filings on the 2nd.

They don't care about the constitution, the 5th amendment doesn't matter. If the court gets in the way, they will pack the court.

 

[J-Bar]

30 Years Ago Today, The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban Was Signed Into Law

Gather round, folks, because today we’re going to do a deep dive into gun control history. Today is the 20th anniversary of the expiration of the Clinton Assault Weapons. September 13, 1994 is a date…

www.shootingnewsweekly.com

View attachment 1227642

Man, I remember it like it was yesterday. The ups and down that happened in that ten-year period was absolutely insane and incredible at the same time. How the market and industry changed, but more importantly how the political landscape changed.

Thanks for the link. Eager to read and save part 2.

 

[Miami_JBT]

They might "go for a total ban", but they would have to grandfather to get it through because of the 5th Amendment prohibition on taking property without compensation and the instantaneous emergency injunctions that would be filed and granted as the traffic was cleared for a fast track to SCOTUS. There the lower court injunctions on the basis of the 5th would be upheld and shortly after the filings on the 2nd.

SCOTUS has ruled in Caetano v. Massachusetts that the Second Amendment applies to modern arms in common usage. That makes any confiscation extremely unlikely via the Constitution. But, gun-grabbers don't care and would try anyways.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Trump was a real estate manager at the time, not a politician. I don't really care what his thoughts on it were a quarter century ago. The difference is he does not support it now, 30 years after the fact, but his opponent endorses outright confiscation. The 2A isn't his biggest priority, but he knows generally where to stand on it. Anyone pretending that the two options here are remotely similar is using a serious mind altering substance.

The Second Amendment is the canary in the coal mine and in 2000, he was already running for office. That did make him a politician.

Anyways, again, how any politician treats gun rights, that tells you how they'll treat all your other rights.

 

[Jim Watson]

Grabber: "Our confiscation of your Bad Gun has been ruled unconstitutional and we are supposed to give it back. But we have already melted it down. Sorry 'bout that."

 

[Will Munny]

The Second Amendment is the canary in the coal mine and in 2000, he was already running for office. That did make him a politician.

Anyways, again, how any politician treats gun rights, that tells you how they'll treat all your other rights.

He was running for office in 2000 like Joe Walsh was running in 1980.
Mostly agree how politicians treat your 2A rights is a meaningful indicator of other rights. Those seeking to end 2A rights are doing it for a reason, armed populations never seem to go quietly into the re-education camps, work camps, or showers like they are supposed to.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

Trump was a real estate manager at the time, not a politician. I don't really care what his thoughts on it were a quarter century ago. The difference is he does not support it now, 30 years after the fact, but his opponent endorses outright confiscation. The 2A isn't his biggest priority, but he knows generally where to stand on it. Anyone pretending that the two options here are remotely similar is using a serious mind altering substance.

Trump is just like all the rest of the elites when it comes to 2A. He’s just better at hiding it so the sheep will give him their vote. Anyone that thinks Trump wouldn’t take the guns if he thought he could get away with it is fooling themselves.

 

[LiveLife]

Anyways, again, how any politician treats gun rights, that tells you how they'll treat all your other rights.

Apparently he was following advice/recommendations of Federalist Society and the NRA.

While NRA mis-advised on the bump stock, thankfully Federalist Society made Supreme Court justice recommendations of "Originalist" Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett which resulted in Bruen ruling that tossed out decades long practice of two-step interest balancing "Greater good of society to impose on individual rights" to "Text, history and tradition" where individual rights were protected with burden shifting from individual to the states/government and also decades long practice of Chevron Deference where executive branch administrative agencies were allowed to "interpret" the laws to expand them were also reversed and judicial branch/Supreme Court took that "interpretive" power back (Had Hillary won in 2016, just imagine what would have happened instead ).

If Trump is elected again by "We the People", I do not believe he would make such mistake again and instead of listening to NRA, he would be better advised to listen to FPC/GOA/SAF.

As to AWB expiring, I tell people that it's due to "We the People" self-governing. In fact, what happened in 2016 to restore Supreme Court make up back towards "Originalist" founding could be push back from "We the People" against government that no longer "properly" represented interest of "We the People".

NOT in accordance to majority mob rule/special interests of corporations and rich elite/Hollywood/media oligarchy BUT according to EQUAL PROTECTION as framed by the founders and ensured by Bill of Rights so ALL PEOPLE of "We the People", not just the bi-coastal city folks rather ALL MINORITY GROUPS, to include gun owners from all walks of life, could enjoy freedom and liberty to exercise self defense and lawful use of arms, including "modern" types of arms and accessories, so even those with physical disabilities and aged along with small statured of "We the People" could EQUALY pursue life, liberty and freedom in this great nation.

And the argument of what's "socially acceptable" in many other countries? Well, just because the Metric Unit system is used all around the world doesn't mean USA will have to stop using inches and miles, right?

I hold hope in "We the People" self-governing and founders' spirit of pursuing individual freedom and liberty, uniquely so as framed by the founders.

Long live the Republic.

 

[TomJ]

The Second Amendment is the canary in the coal mine and in 2000, he was already running for office. That did make him a politician.

Anyways, again, how any politician treats gun rights, that tells you how they'll treat all your other rights.

He was president for 4 years and did not push for an AWB. We know what he did and he's done or said nothing since to indicate he'd push for another ban. Kamala, on the other hand has publicly stated she's for not only a ban but mandatory buy backs.

x.com

x.com

 

[Miami_JBT]

He was president for 4 years and did not push for an AWB. We know what he did and he's done or said nothing since to indicate he'd push for another ban. Kamala, on the other hand has publicly stated she's for not only a ban but mandatory buy backs.

x.com

x.com

Harris is worse, but Trump can't be trusted.

 

[American_Fusilier]

Yeah, when kamala wins in Nov, our rights will be in serious jeopardy. Especially gun rights. I am not looking forward to all that..

 

[LiveLife]

Harris is worse, but Trump can't be trusted.

Yeah, when kamala wins in Nov, our rights will be in serious jeopardy. Especially gun rights. I am not looking forward to all that..

If you are a gun owner and want gun rights, it's a no brainer who to vote for in November.

I will take "Oops, my bad, I made a mistake of listening to NRA, so sorry as Supreme Court slapped me down on my executive branch/administrative agency overreach decision" of Trump over "Mandatory gun buyback/confiscation" of Harris ANY DAY.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Yeah, when kamala wins in Nov, our rights will be in serious jeopardy. Especially gun rights. I am not looking forward to all that..

If Republicans control the Senate, our rights will be safe most the part.

So, if Republicans win control the Senate even if they lose the House. You'll have legislative gridlock, which is a good thing. And she won't have control over appointments to the courts.

The President is not an absolute sovereign taking a seat in the throne.

SCOTUS has killed Chevron Deference. Executive Orders are weakened (she can't pull a Trump ordering BATFE to change things codified into law), multiple SCOTUS rulings have enumerated the Second Amendment as an inalienable right. Plus, you have a grassroots movement going forward to nullify federal powers under both the 10th Amendment and through general public consensus.

The real fight is the state legislatures and their gubernatorial offices. That's where the fight has been happening now for a decade.