AWB death question -- so what happens if...

[iamkris]

...I make an alteration to a current post-ban weapon, that would noremally not be allowed on that weapon under current law, and a new, "improved" AWB is hung around our necks in the next few years.

Specifically, the only AWB disallowed device I'm interested in is an M4 6 position telescopic stock on my CAR15.

What is likely to happen if (hopefully not when) a new AWB is introduced. Will it be grandfathered? If so, how will they be able to tell?

 

[Cortland]

Will it be grandfathered?

How on earth would I know? If there's a new law, it will say what it will say. I cannot see into the future, nor can anyone else here.

After the ban expires, put your telescoping stock on. If there's a new ban and pre-ban guns aren't grandfathered, then I guess you'd have to take it off. I don't see what you're confused about...

There is no federal precedent for confiscating "pre-ban" guns, and the political impact of "gun confiscation" is too powerful for even the most ardent anti-gunners to face.

I wouldn't fret too much about a new ban. If there's no political will to to renew the current ban, I can't imagine the votes will be there to enact a new ban. A lot of folks are under the impression that the nearness of the election is the only thing that keeps the ban from being renewed. Even if that's the case, keep in mind there's always the nearness of an upcoming election in the House, which is where the 1994 backlash was felt the strongest, and in which there is the most opposition to the current ban. Executive orders aside, people tend to become fixated on the Presidency, but in the current political climate it's the House that has the largest role to play in preventing anti-gun legislation.

 

[sumpnz]

IANAL, but soon as the AWB expires you do whatever you want to your CAR-15 (within the limits of all the other laws of course). If a new AWB comes in later, the effect will depend on the language. If it's just another manufacturing ban, like the current one, just get a notarized description including photo to prove that the gun was in that config before the potential new ban takes effect. If they put in a possesion ban, well things might get ugly.

 

[iamkris]

sumpnz -- thanks for your reply. Just pondering and getting other people's thoughts.

Cortland -- uh, thanks, uh for your rather annoying tone.

 

[Cortland]

Cortland -- uh, thanks, uh for your rather annoying tone.

You're welcome!

 

[TheOtherOne]

Executive orders aside

That is what we have to worry about. From what I understand the 1989 AWB was done with no help from congress. The president just decided and it was done. I think we have just been lucky that Clinton and Bush II haven't done the same. Especially Clinton in the 2nd half of his term. If he was so anti-gun, I wonder why he didn't push out a bunch of gun banning orders when he wasn't up for re-election.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

(Executive orders) That is what we have to worry about. From what I understand the 1989 AWB was done with no help from congress. The president just decided and it was done. I think we have just been lucky that Clinton and Bush II haven't done the same.

Executive orders must be based on the law. The 1989 decision to restrict imports of certain semi-autos was based on the 1968 Gun Control Act. This law allowed ATF to restrict the import of firearms that were not for "sporting purposes". In 1989, he ATF revisted this issue at the behest of Bush Sr. and decided that these semi-autos did not meet the "sporting purposes" test.

The reason Clinton didn't use an executive order prior to 1994 was because he had no authority to do so. If he did, he would most certainly have used it rather than engage in a costly and controversial legislative effort that cost his party control of Congress.

When the 1994 law expires, there will be no authority to restrict domestic manufacture of semi-autos. Imports will still remain subject to the 1989 ruling however.

 

[Sam Adams]

Bartholomew Roberts

Executive orders must be based on the law. The 1989 decision to restrict imports of certain semi-autos was based on the 1968 Gun Control Act. This law allowed ATF to restrict the import of firearms that were not for "sporting purposes".

A somewhat off-topic question: given what you said about the basis for EO's, in your opinion could a President theoretically issue one that banned the possession of imported bolt-action rifles that were originally issued to the military of the nation concerned (i.e. an outright ban, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in)? I speak specifically of military Mausers, Lee-Enfields, Mosin-Nagants, Swiss K-31s, etc.

 

[Michigander]

Executive orders must be based on the law. The 1989 decision to restrict imports of certain semi-autos was based on the 1968 Gun Control Act. This law allowed ATF to restrict the import of firearms that were not for "sporting purposes".

You know, we all need to start hunting and competition shooting with every make, kind and style of firearm there is.

Then they will all be for "sporting purposes."

 

[TheOtherOne]

could a President theoretically issue one that banned the possession of imported bolt-action rifles that were originally issued to the military of the nation concerned (i.e. an outright ban, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in)? I speak specifically of military Mausers, Lee-Enfields, Mosin-Nagants, Swiss K-31s, etc.

I was doing some searching and from reading this article from the NRA, I would believe that they have been illegal since 1968. Of course, since we can still buy them I obviously read something wrong. But here's what I'm referring to:

As part of what would become the 1968 Gun Control Act, Congress set up a massive new bureaucratic scheme run by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to regulate all commercial commerce in firearms and ammunition; prohibit mail order sales of firearms; prohibit interstate firearms transfers between individuals; ban outright the importation of surplus military arms; and give the Treasury secretary broad authority to ban importation of any other firearms which it might declare as not "generally-recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes . . ."

 

[adobewalls]

In regard to the original question...

------------------------------------------------------------------
What is likely to happen if (hopefully not when) a new AWB is introduced. Will it be grandfathered? If so, how will they be able to tell?
------------------------------------------------------------------

If the '94 AWB sunsets, it dies. If another AWB is drafted and passed at some later date, then it seems to follow that the bar for "pre-bans" would be advanced to the date the new law becomes effective. To do otherwise would run the risk of creating an ex post facto law - which is a no-no under the constitution. At least in theory that is.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm

How could they tell - I guess we would continue to look hard at the serial numbers and manufacture dates.

 

[RJ357]

I wonder how big of a voice the BATF and law enforcement has in any new ban. It seems that a new ban after a no ban period would be an enforcement nightmare. I would expect they would push for for either a uninterrupted continuation or no new ban at all.

 

[Cortland]

The prohibition against ex post facto is no guarantee of future grandfather provisions. A law which says: from this day forward, it is illegal to possess assault weapons, is not ex post facto.

There are plenty of ways such a ban could go down: it might include a mandatory buyback provision, or successive licensing requirements (which is, of course, how DC banned handguns). A new ban which did grandfather guns wouldn't necessarily have to allow the transfer of grandfathered guns, which is almost as bad as no grandfathering at all.

However, I still say ... ain't gonna happen.

 

[iamkris]

Hope you're right Cortland...that said, I'm a switchin all my stuff on Sept 15th