unlimited4x4
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 236
If a ban were to be imposed, where would the PCC AR platforms fall? I'm sure it would depend on the wording used in the ban, but it seems to me there might be some exceptions with PCC AR's.
AR ban curiosity question
- Thread starter unlimited4x4
- Start date
- Status
Telekinesis
Member
There you go. No one knows what a future ban would be like because it hasn't been written yet.
In general, a pistol caliber AR still has almost all the same scary features as a rifle caliber AR, so I wouldn't expect it to be excluded from any bans.
They know they screwed up on the wording last time, so they would make pretty dang sure this time. The good news is that it isn't going to happen right now. They gave it their best shot and failed. They are busy licking their wounds and regrouping for the next opportunity. In the future? It depends on who controls the house and senate, and who is sitting on the supreme court.
But make no mistake about it, they'll be smarter with the wording next time around if they get a chance.
But make no mistake about it, they'll be smarter with the wording next time around if they get a chance.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'm going to write a book. Tell me what's in it.
No reason to guess about any positive aspects or loopholes of some future legislation. As fast as you can think up exemptions and work-arounds, they can think up ways to prohibit things.
Concentrate on not letting it happen.
No reason to guess about any positive aspects or loopholes of some future legislation. As fast as you can think up exemptions and work-arounds, they can think up ways to prohibit things.
Concentrate on not letting it happen.
MICHAEL T
Member
Sex and violence if you hope to make money
OP
OP
unlimited4x4
Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 236
I debated even posting this question just because of the "what if" scenario. But the last time a ban was enacted PCC AR's were not as prevalent as they are today. I pray this never happens. Honestly just popped into my head while sitting in traffic.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,702
Awhile back I saw that in Israel they have something that sort of converts a handgun to a carbine, the handgun fits into the frame of the thing. If I understood correctly, you can put it in and take it out as desired, i.e. it is not a permanent "conversion". I assume this has something to do with the idiosyncrasies of their gun laws. Do you guys think such a thing would be interesting for here, and conversely, is this something you think the anti's would try to ban?
MedWheeler
Member
^^ Already available here. Mech-Tech makes them for Glock and 1911 pistols. One field-strips the pistol, then inserts the frame into the conversion assembly.
I have no experience with them, however, so I cannot comment on them. Whether or not they ever fall under a ban attack depends on how readily the media gets wind of their existence and exploits it.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/jeremy-s/mechtech-c-c-u/
I have no experience with them, however, so I cannot comment on them. Whether or not they ever fall under a ban attack depends on how readily the media gets wind of their existence and exploits it.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/jeremy-s/mechtech-c-c-u/
If they get control of Congress and the Presidency again then I promise they will enact another ban and try for confiscation of current guns. I can envision a ban on any firearm capable of accepting more than 10 rounds in a magazine because, you know, nobody can reload quickly. That would basically ban all "assault rifles, full size semi pistols, and Ruger 10-22s.
AlexanderA
Member
We can't really predict the form such a ban would take, except that it would be more restrictive than the last one. The only thing we can do at this point is work to keep Congress out of the hands of the gun-banners.
A ban would involve legislators passing it in open Congress. The major disincentive at present is the ongoing revelation of the Clinton Foundation selling state secrets to foreigners and the Wikileaks dump of the evidence.
There is a much larger international scandal looming and a gun ban is small potatoes. Too bad we won't discuss it here. If you have heard of 4Chan, Reddit, or read the ongoing multiple threads at arfcom you have a clue.
There are much larger events coming up that will far overshadow worrying about a gun ban.
There is a much larger international scandal looming and a gun ban is small potatoes. Too bad we won't discuss it here. If you have heard of 4Chan, Reddit, or read the ongoing multiple threads at arfcom you have a clue.
There are much larger events coming up that will far overshadow worrying about a gun ban.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Maybe at the Federal level, but not at the state level. It's quite possible for a given state to create laws that effectively ban an entire class of firearms, and until a legal case goes before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules in the favor of the RKBA and strikes down the ban - the ban is the law of that state.
I believe the proposed ban following Sandy Hook had verbage that grandfathered AR's would be nontransferable and upon the owners' death would be collected by the government or some such nonsense. Senator Feinstein has had like three decades in office to plan it.
Acera
Member
You just have to look at the path taken by the states in the past number of years as a template for their success. Then look to Australia and Canada to get an idea of where they want to take it soon. Still think we may see some executive action after the election to save hillary from having to take heat.
Now is the time to execute any plan you have as a hedge against future infringement.
Plus, my heirs have already been written into the trust ahead of any transfer ban. So my stuff is good for another 60+ years in the family.
.
Now is the time to execute any plan you have as a hedge against future infringement.
Plus, my heirs have already been written into the trust ahead of any transfer ban. So my stuff is good for another 60+ years in the family.
.
I think that the Attorney General of Massachusetts found the wording that will be used in the next gun ban. It is pretty devastating. No more AR's, AK's, etc.
"The state will use a similarity and interchangeability test, to determine whether a gun is too similar to an assault weapon. If is it, the sale of the weapon will be prohibited in Massachusetts."
LINK to the Official wording.
The two tests (from the above link):
1: Similarity Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if its internal functional components are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an Enumerated Weapon. Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.
2: Interchangeability Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if it has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an Enumerated Weapon. A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon. Such operating components may include, but are not limited to: 1) the trigger assembly; 2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group; 3) the charging handle; 4) the extractor or extractor assembly; or 5) the magazine port.
"The state will use a similarity and interchangeability test, to determine whether a gun is too similar to an assault weapon. If is it, the sale of the weapon will be prohibited in Massachusetts."
LINK to the Official wording.
The two tests (from the above link):
1: Similarity Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if its internal functional components are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an Enumerated Weapon. Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.
2: Interchangeability Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if it has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an Enumerated Weapon. A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon. Such operating components may include, but are not limited to: 1) the trigger assembly; 2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group; 3) the charging handle; 4) the extractor or extractor assembly; or 5) the magazine port.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,257
Likely something like this
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/07/20/massachussetts-outlaws-all-cough-assault-weapons/
Ahh, and too slow again.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/07/20/massachussetts-outlaws-all-cough-assault-weapons/
Ahh, and too slow again.
AlexanderA
Member
Acera wrote:
Sure. She could order the ATF to revisit its long-standing position that semiautomatic AR-15's are not "readily convertible" to fully automatic. Turning the clock back to the early 1960's, it's actually somewhat surprising that the ATF allowed the AR-15 to be sold to civilians in the first place. I'm not complaining, but that decision could easily have gone the other way.
We now have 50+ years of precedent that would have to be overlooked in order to reverse this. Make no mistake, though, it could be done on an executive level and Congress would have to muster a veto-proof majority to overcome it.
If we were lucky, they might allow a tax-free amnesty to register our AR's under the NFA. Of course, if they allowed that, there would be no reason not to go ahead and convert them to fully automatic.
Sure. She could order the ATF to revisit its long-standing position that semiautomatic AR-15's are not "readily convertible" to fully automatic. Turning the clock back to the early 1960's, it's actually somewhat surprising that the ATF allowed the AR-15 to be sold to civilians in the first place. I'm not complaining, but that decision could easily have gone the other way.
We now have 50+ years of precedent that would have to be overlooked in order to reverse this. Make no mistake, though, it could be done on an executive level and Congress would have to muster a veto-proof majority to overcome it.
If we were lucky, they might allow a tax-free amnesty to register our AR's under the NFA. Of course, if they allowed that, there would be no reason not to go ahead and convert them to fully automatic.
Walkalong wrote:
Thank you. People get so fixated on the President's attitude towards guns they fail to recognize that the legislation has to be passed by the House and Senate, so that's where the attention of Second Amendment advocates needs to be focused.
Thank you. People get so fixated on the President's attitude towards guns they fail to recognize that the legislation has to be passed by the House and Senate, so that's where the attention of Second Amendment advocates needs to be focused.
AlexanderA
Member
hdwhit wrote:
Generally, that's true. However, as I pointed out earlier, there are things that could be done by a president, on his (or her) own, that would be highly destructive of our gun possession rights. He (or she) could direct the ATF to issue Rulings that would overturn other, long-standing Rulings. Those are not set in stone. Let's not be lulled into a false sense of security if the Republicans retain control of the House and/or Senate. They would need veto-proof majorities in both houses in order to be sure of negating certain presidential actions.
Generally, that's true. However, as I pointed out earlier, there are things that could be done by a president, on his (or her) own, that would be highly destructive of our gun possession rights. He (or she) could direct the ATF to issue Rulings that would overturn other, long-standing Rulings. Those are not set in stone. Let's not be lulled into a false sense of security if the Republicans retain control of the House and/or Senate. They would need veto-proof majorities in both houses in order to be sure of negating certain presidential actions.
AlexanderA
Member
jmorris wrote:
However, 18 USC 922(o)(2)(A) authorizes possession "under the authority of the United States." It is at least arguable that a formal amnesty, grandfathering weapons that were previously legal under ATF interpretations in effect at that time, satisfies this test. (The Attorney General has authority, under a special provision of the Gun Control Act of '68, to declare a machine gun amnesty at any time.)
If semiautomatic AR's were suddenly made illegal as being "readily converted" to fully automatic, without an amnesty or method of making them legal, it would raise constitutional questions under the 5th Amendment. That Amendment requires compensation (at fair market value) for private property taken for public use. Declaring something illegal, that was previously legal, is tantamount to a "taking."
However, 18 USC 922(o)(2)(A) authorizes possession "under the authority of the United States." It is at least arguable that a formal amnesty, grandfathering weapons that were previously legal under ATF interpretations in effect at that time, satisfies this test. (The Attorney General has authority, under a special provision of the Gun Control Act of '68, to declare a machine gun amnesty at any time.)
If semiautomatic AR's were suddenly made illegal as being "readily converted" to fully automatic, without an amnesty or method of making them legal, it would raise constitutional questions under the 5th Amendment. That Amendment requires compensation (at fair market value) for private property taken for public use. Declaring something illegal, that was previously legal, is tantamount to a "taking."
Last edited:
Acera
Member
Hate to take this a bit off topic, so how does California get away with making certain magazines illegal. SB-1446 was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown last month and requires folks destroy or turn in magazines over 10 rounds. I've seen no proposed compensation for those owning those magazines.
AlexanderA
Member
Acera wrote:
1. The compensation clause of the 5th Amendment, on its face, applies to the federal government. I don't know offhand if this has been "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment to apply to the states, or if California has its own state-level equivalent. If it does, then this could be grist for a lawsuit.
2. That said, California residents can simply remove the offending items from the state. (Store them in Arizona or Nevada.) It's not a "taking" if you have alternatives.
(I expect the reaction of most people affected by this will be just to hide the items. That's fine for them if they don't get caught. This is what you call an "extralegal" solution. Something that Europeans are very used to.)
1. The compensation clause of the 5th Amendment, on its face, applies to the federal government. I don't know offhand if this has been "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment to apply to the states, or if California has its own state-level equivalent. If it does, then this could be grist for a lawsuit.
2. That said, California residents can simply remove the offending items from the state. (Store them in Arizona or Nevada.) It's not a "taking" if you have alternatives.
(I expect the reaction of most people affected by this will be just to hide the items. That's fine for them if they don't get caught. This is what you call an "extralegal" solution. Something that Europeans are very used to.)
Last edited:
- Status