Assault Rifle Ban?

[zeke707]

If the assault rifle is ever banned what is the most likely scenario?

1. Ban future sales but allow current owners to retain ownership.
2. Ban all existing ownership (assault rifles would have to be disposed of).
3. What about any pellet or 22 cal semi-automatic rifle?
4. Dependent on magazine capacity.
5. ATF license could be applied for similar to automatic (machine gun, etc) to own an assault rifle.

 

[Librarian]

No way to tell until a bill is proposed.

 

[cbrgator]

Assault rifles are already heavily regulated.

I think you mean Assault Weapons Ban. Nobody knows what it will contain because no legislation has been introduced.

 

[Pilot]

No, I think he means legal, semi-automatic rifles that cosmetically resemble some military rifles.

Just a guess, but they already have a blueprint from the 1994 ban. I think it would be similar.

 

[Risky]

Just a guess, but they already have a blueprint from the 1994 ban. I think it would be similar.

No way. The Brady bunch saw how easily their efforts were circumvented by simply cutting off bayonet lugs and removing flash suppressors. Any new ban will resemble California-style regulation of detachable magazine rifles with pistol grips/folding stocks and likely eliminate any grandfathering of restricted items.

 

[Hacker15E]

My bet is that if a new AWB is proposed, the current popularity of the AR pattern (including that it is sold at WalMart!) will show that it falls under the "common use" definition of Heller.

This will mean that attempts to put teeth in a new AWB (ergo, make it not about just 'cosmetic features') will render it DOA.

 

[nazshooter]

My bet would be a focus on magazine restrictions for starters.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jeff H]

Last time I checked, all bills have to originate in the House. The current Speaker would never let this get to the floor so unless the make up of congress is changed (unlikely) this President can't introduce anything.

 

[orionengnr]

Last time I checked, all bills have to originate in the House.

Constitutionally, yes...but that only applies if you choose to observe the Constitution.
This requirement is (and has been) easily circumvented.
Take a look at how Obamacare came about...there is your blueprint.

And don't forget about Executive Orders...

 

[Jim K]

Supporters see re-enactment of the 1994 ban with NO expiration date and also want to add semi-automatic handguns and shotguns as well, plus a magazine/cylinder limit of five rounds. They would probably allow existing guns to be retained, but there is talk about a ban on sales and inheritance - when the owner dies, the gun would have to be turned in for destruction without compensation.

Jim

 

[bushmaster1313]

Bill Ruger said to limit firepower limit magazines.

 

[Jeff H]

Take a look at how Obamacare came about...there is your blueprint.

You're confused. The evil witch was Speaker then and told all of Congress if you want to know what is in the bill, you had to vote for it. She brought it to the floor for a vote.

Executive orders are scary though, we agree on that.

 

[gbran]

I don't see a new AWB, but I do see them go after magazine capacity. A new 10 round stand-alone bill wouldn't surprise me.

 

[hso]

None of the above.

The point already has been made that assault rifles are regulated under NFA.

The mythical "assault weapon" is unlikely to face any sort of ban again.

 

[coolluke01]

Doesn't Ex Post Facto keep them from making a former legal act illegal? They can't make a law and then charge you will breaking that law in the past.

I think most of those bans made buying new weapons illegal. Owning existing weapons has not been restricted. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[justice06rr]

"Assault Rifles" which are normally full-auto weapons are already highly regulated by the ATF.

What you probably mean are Assault Weapons being banned like in the previous Clinton Era. If the new administration attempts it, they would likely try to ban high-cap mags and possibly folding stocks etc. That is all speculation of course at this time.

 

[Jim K]

We can argue definitions until all the cows get sold to McDonalds, but the definition of an "assault weapon" will be whatever the law, if enacted, says it is. We have already seen references to "assault pistols" (referring to Glocks), "assault revolvers", "assault knives" and so forth.

As to grandfathering, believe me the antis will go as far as they can, even to a national program of confiscation and slaughter by the military, using tanks and tactical nukes against American citizens. Nutty? Maybe, but it has been proposed by some of the totally insane anti-gun gang.

Jim

 

[crazy-mp]

*Hypothetical*

If there was a assault weapons ban (there term not mine) they would most likely follow the same rules as for the old MAK 90's that were imported, the ATF asked people who had one with the magical extra hole for a auto sear to turn them in, they politely flipped ATF the bird and said thanks but no. So the owners could legally posess them as semi auto's but they are illegal to sell, transfer or gift to another person, and they are considered machine guns if your caught with one and can't prove that you were the legal owner from nearly 20 years ago.

Or....

It could go the way of the USAS 12, where there is a amnesty period where you can either turn in or register your gun, and any gun found after that will be considered illegal and you will go to jail and pay a fine on your way out.


If there is another AWB (California rules for all) there will most likely not be a sunset date this time.

 

[Telekinesis]

2. Ban all existing ownership (assault rifles would have to be disposed of).

5. ATF license could be applied for similar to automatic (machine gun, etc) to own an assault rifle.

A nation wide turn-in of assault weapons would be a MASSIVE undertaking considering that nearly everyone who has purchased a typical pistol since 2004 has at least one magazine that would qualify for confiscation. Just imagine millions of people coming to their local police station to turn in these weapons and magazines... What would the local LEOs do with all of them? Most don't have the resources to even secure that many weapons, much less pay to have them destroyed.

And I'm sure you know, but just to reiterate: there is no "license" to own a machine gun or any other Title 2 weapon. It is a simple tax that has to be paid, along with the corresponding paperwork to be filled out.

Doesn't Ex Post Facto keep them from making a former legal act illegal? They can't make a law and then charge you will breaking that law in the past.

Ex Post Facto says that says that you can't be charged for doing something if it was legal at the time the act was committed. The only way this could come into effect for an AWB is if they made a law saying that it is illegal to TRANSFER ownership of an assault weapon. If ownership was transferred before the ban went into effect, it would be legal and you could not be charged for it in the future. But if they were to make possession illegal and you possess the weapon after the law has gone into effect, you are actively committing a crime and can be charged for it.

I think most of those bans made buying new weapons illegal. Owning existing weapons has not been restricted. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Take a look into machine guns. If it wasn't registered before May 1986, it is illegal regardless of how long you have owned it.

 

[cbrgator]

Doesn't Ex Post Facto keep them from making a former legal act illegal? They can't make a law and then charge you will breaking that law in the past.

I think most of those bans made buying new weapons illegal. Owning existing weapons has not been restricted. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The previous AWB did have a grandfather clause, but not because of ex post facto concerns.

Your concept of ex post facto is off a bit. Ex post facto means you can't be punished for an act that wasn't a crime when you committed it. A law criminalizing possession of assault weapons beginning as of the law's enactment would not be ex post facto.

 

[coolluke01]

If it wasn't registered before May 1986, it is illegal regardless of how long you have owned it.

Isn't that when the law was enacted?

I understand Ex post facto, I'm just pointing out that most of the laws have been made with regard to transfer and not ownership. If we do get a AWB it would likely be similar to what we have already seen in the past.

 

[GEM]

If a ban on the military derivative semiauto long arms was to come to fruition (which I sincerely doubt), the authors of such have learned the lesson of the first AWB.

It failed for their purposes because:

1. The existing stock in private hands was so large
2. With cosmetic changes, semis were easily available with no change in efficacy as weapons.
3. There was no effect on any known crime index.
4. The antis know this research.

Thus, they would propose based on the research:

1. Total prohibition of manufacture of semiauto long arms that accept magazines (and maybe all semis). Mag manufacture made illegal
2. Confiscation of existing stocks of weapons and mags
3. Probably similar moves on handguns with capacities greater than 10 rounds.

Of couse, such measures would fail for the most part and generate much uproar.

While a fantasy of Mayor Bloomers, Feinstein, Schumer, etc. - with the current polling on gun rights showing a solid majority for them - it's not going to happen.

 

[henschman]

There has never been outright confiscation in this country, as we have seen in Commonwealth countries, for instance. Any future legislation will almost certainly grandfather in currently owned items, and just ban all further sale onto the civilian market of certain things.

I agree that a magazine capacity restriction is the most likely type of legislation that we will see proposed, based on the recent shooting sprees in Arizona and Colorado.

If you dismiss this as being unlikely to happen, I would say you are deluding yourself. I have no doubt that most of the general public would agree with the statements that "you don't need a 100 round mag for your semi-automatic rifle," and "you don't need a 33 round mag for your pistol." And regardless of party, most politicians couldn't really care less about your AR-15 and all the fun and legal things you enjoy doing with it... if they get the notion that public opinion would support the ban of certain capacity mags and that they could get some sort of political benefit out of it, they will sell you down the river in a heartbeat. The fact that most of them don't currently see much benefit in pushing such legislation does not mean our rights are safe... it just means they are safe for the time being.

Advances have been made, but we still have a long way to go in the battle for public opinion on this issue... even among the gun owning community there seem to be few enough who recognize even something so basic as the main purpose behind the 2nd Amendment being to preserve the people's ability to resist the government with force.

 

[justice06rr]

Henchmen I agree with what you posted above.

The thing that always gets me is when the anti's would attempt to define what a person "needs" in regards to owning a high capacity magazine. That is up to an individual to decide, not the goverment to regulate. Whether you want a 5rd or 60rd magazine is up to you. "Need" has nothing to do with it.

If that was the case, can we tell them they don't "need" their 6-figure salaries and armed security detail?

 

[Owen Sparks]

How many more Millions of AR's and how many tens of millions more magazines are now in private hands than in 1994?

Enough to be reasonably cheap and plentiful for the rest of our lives. Banning the most popular rifle in the country or hi-cap magazines will be nearly impossible after all the waves of buying panic. I know people who own in excess of 100 magazines.