How does the AWB impact me?

[Cosmoline]

With all the huffing and puffing over the AWB renewal, can someone explain exactly how it has impacted me? I can think of a dozen federal actions which have injured my RKBA more, from the high-cap ban to various import bans and restrictions, not to mention the NFA itself.

I can still buy AR and AK clones, with certain replacement parts used to circumvent the AWB. Granted, I don't like the law. But it could have been far worse. Simply re-enacting it in its current toothless form seems better than to risk drawing out debate until the Dems take charge next year and REALLY screw us over.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

With all the huffing and puffing over the AWB renewal, can someone explain exactly how it has impacted me?

The very normal capacity magazine ban you are saying hurt RKBA more is part of the AWB law that will sunset in 2004. Good enough example?

Simply re-enacting it in its current toothless form seems better than to risk drawing out debate until the Dems take charge next year and REALLY screw us over.

You make that sound like it is an either/or choice. The Dems can REALLY screw us over any time they get the votes to do so and already have made several proposals much worse than the current AWB. Did they give up trying to get more when they got the Brady Bill or were they back the next year asking for more laws?

Why do you think they will slow down if they get a renewal of Feinstein's law? The debate will not go away just because gunowners choose not to participate; but if we don't participate it will certainly get a lot more one-sided and it won't be our side.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Toothless? It's a stepping stone to more and wider gun bans. There's already a proposed expansion in the works that bans hundreds of more types of guns, and allows the AG to arbitrarily band more regardless of their "sporting purpose".

Do you want to throw people in jail for having bayonets or flash hiders on their guns? Fight this law, even if it doesn't impact you.

 

[FW]

I can still buy AR and AK clones, with certain replacement parts used to circumvent the AWB.

"Circumvent"? That's exactly the language they are using to justify banning all ARs and AKs. They refer to this as "strengthening" the AWB.

They've been slowly banning everything one step at a time. It's time for them to take a step back.

 

[antsi]

1. What makes you think that a) renewing the ban in its current form, and b) adding on new restrictions after the elections, are mutually exclusive? If a) happens and the dems get control of the government after the elections, I'm 100% sure b) would follow.

2. The magazine capacity ban is part of the AWB. If you want new full caps, the AWB needs to go away.

3. The antis' gun control strategy is an incremental one. They are trying to push us down a slippery slope. We need to push them back.

 

[greyhound]

Its the line in the sand that, along with the CCW laws being passed in more and more states, says that as far as acceptance of gun rights go, the tide is turning.

Yes, that is somewhat symbolic, but other than the flawed GOPA of 1986, when has Federal legislation gone away? ( I can't think of any, though I may be wrong).

 

[Cosmoline]

Odd, for some reason I had the date of the high-cap ban at 1991. Is this the effect of an ill-spent youth?

 

[Jeff White]

I have a Colt R6920 LE Carbine. I paid for it out of my pocket. Yet when I leave law enforcement, I will have to get rid of it if the law is extended.

I have a couple AR projects I'm keeping on hold because of the ban.

I'd like to buy a couple more 12 round magazines for my USP45. I will lose the ones I have when I leave LE, just like my rifle.

I don't want my brother gunowners to lose anymore sleep over the possibility of the authorities doing a dynamic entry on their home at 0430 because they inadvertantly bought a rifle they were told was pre-ban but it wasn't. This abombination of our rights has done more to foster the us vs. them attitude between gun owners and police officers then anything Josh Sugarmann could have concocted.

It doesn't matter to me that the ban is cosmetic, or even that many rifles are more accurate without flash hiders. It doesn't matter that prices of post bans are down. What matters is that this is an unconstitutional infringement on everyones rights and it needs to go. I'm not willing to comprimise on this issue. Congress has no power that they could trade me to get my support for renewall and I promise to put all my effort into defeating anyone from any party who would renew it. That goes from the president on down.

They could offer me anything in the way of future legislation, it wouldn't matter. I will not trade restoration of my rights for anything. Not lawsuit immunity, not even if Feinstien, Schumer, Clinton, Durbin and the rest promised to commit ritual suicide at halftime on the final four broadcast next month...

No compromise.....

Jeff

 

[ID_shooting]

What really bothers me about this whole deal isn't the current ban. I could give one less hoot about it, it sucks, but, I could live with it. What I can't live with is the new enhanced ban they are attempting to get through. They are not trying to make the old one permanent, they are trying to replace with one that will take away any wepon the is based on a battle rifle. That means no sporterized AK's, no AR's, no nothing, not even mini-14's. Opps, looks like that one backfired on Ruger. The one I read said somthing like "no semi-auto rifle with a removeable mag and has over 10 rounds except 22s" Or somthing to that effect. That means the only auto battle rifle you will be allowed to own is a m1 garand.

The bastages!

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Think of it this wasy. We have weathered a 10 year ban on AW by cosmetic alterations. We have weathered a 10 year ban on high-cap magazines becaue of the large supply of pre-ban mags.

How long will the pre-ban supply hold up? When they are all gone, what then? If it is extended, at what point does LE start checking mags for capacity?

And, yes, you can get your ar/ak/sks for now. But for how long? AT what point will ATFe say "well, now it is permanent, so we can start making abitrary and capricious directives to ban imports?"

Get real. A ban is a ban is a ban.

 

[madmike]

Why should I worry about transfer fees for autos and short barrels? I can do what I need with a semi or longer barrel.

Why should I worry about paperwork to buy? I'm not a criminal.

What's wrong with an auto ban? They're too pricey to worry about anyway.

Why should I worry about an AW ban? Post bans work just as well, and not having more than ten rounds stops me from wasting ammo at the range.

Why should I worry about a semi ban? Aimed shots are better anyway, and pump shotguns are more reliable.

Why should I worry about a repeater ban? Two shots is all a good hunter needs, and enough to stop a burglar.

Hey, a REAL sportsman only NEEDS one shot.

Who really needs working guns anyway? The replicas are safer, less likely to be stolen, and ammo's too expensive anyway. Add in the licenses and storage fees, the range fees, and really, I can do what I need just fine with airsoft.

Now that I think about it, it was all a waste of money. I can invest in these collector grade prints of the great weapons of the world.

Oh, they were just a bunch of stupid posters anyway. It's not like I could USE them.

When it comes right down to it...

 

[Maimaktes]

It has ruined me. It has put me in, and kept me in, crushing, bitter, can't-buy-toilet-paper, teeth-falling-out-like-in-"Papillon" poverty for at least five years now, and getting worse all the time. It has made me unemployable. It has limited or eliminated every single choice I would have otherwise had in my life. It has destroyed my relationship with my dying parents. It has cost me every friend I ever had. It has ruined and broken me.

And where did you get the idea that the normal-capacity magazine ban was *not* part of the AWB? It always was part of it, in some ways the worst part of it.

If this thing gets renewed, at all, in *any* form, from that day forward I shall regard myself as, on some level and in some sense, a man without a country. I will know that America as I knew it, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave has been utterly subverted and overthrown by the God-damned forces of evil, and that it's just dead, and there's nothing worthwhile left of it.

I may continue, for a while, to smile and bow and scrape and kowtow to my Masters and their occupying army of six or seven hundred thousand hired triggermen, and to pretend to comply.

But all love and all respect will have died in me. I may not be strong enough to become a very dangerous man, but I hope and pray I will find the courage to be as dangerous as a powerless man can. And may God give me the strength to be truly dangerous.

And may God truly and awfully curse and damn all the traitors and oathbreakers who have brought my country and me to this. Amen.

Maimaktes

 

[GSB]

Odd, for some reason I had the date of the high-cap ban at 1991. Is this the effect of an ill-spent youth?

Every google hit I've found lists it as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. Maybe there was another piece of restrictive legislation in '91 you were thinking about?

 

[Thumper]

How has it affected me?

It's been a serious damn nuisance. I hate having to pay 60 bucks for mags I used to pay 14 bucks for.

I hate the look of an AR with a naked barrel. It just looks wrong. Non- collapsing collapsible stocks are plain offensive.

What the heck good is a 10/22 without Butler Creek high caps? Those clip together 10 rounders they made for awhile made me want to hit someone.

 

[Thumper]

Wow...I just read Maimaktes' post.

It has ruined me. It has put me in, and kept me in, crushing, bitter, can't-buy-toilet-paper, teeth-falling-out-like-in-"Papillon" poverty for at least five years now, and getting worse all the time. It has made me unemployable. It has limited or eliminated every single choice I would have otherwise had in my life. It has destroyed my relationship with my dying parents. It has cost me every friend I ever had. It has ruined and broken me.

You ARE kidding, right?

 

[geekWithA.45]

I wasn't going to cross post this here...

But since someone asked "How does the AWB affect me?" I have to reply.


http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_geekwitha45_archive.html#107758453036379232

The AWB Fight is NOW.


This is the Big One.

I don't want anyone to have any illusions. This is the watershed moment of this generation, and it is here and it is now. Although their fruit will not be entirely seen for some time, the seeds of the trees of Liberty or Tyranny will be planted in the next few days.

If the AWB dies, it will be a significant victory in the ongoing battle between those who would disarm the People, and those who preserve the People's ultimate contigency.

Make no mistake: THE AWB MUST DIE.

The Second Amendment is about nothing less than preserving the People's means and ability to make war if the circumstances indicate it is necessary and just to do so.

The Cost of Failure Is Immense.

Plenty of gunners delude themselves, thinking that the AWB is merely symbolic, and that the evil features aren't all that important, but once you clear out all the smoke, smash the mirrors, and sweep out the glass, the AWB is nothing less than a direct challenge to the principle that the People are the ultimate authority from which government derives its authority.

Quote:
------------
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
------------

Consent can not be meaningfully granted by a generally unarmed people, for they are subject to any and every sort of intimidation and duress, and have not even the hope of effecting their own salvation.

Any renewal of any sort will confirm that the Second Amendment is not an effective restraint on the power of government, and if that's true, then all bets are off.

Accuse me of hyperbole if you want, but the bottom line is that the AWB threatens to unravel the whole cloth of our Republic.

That's how it affects you.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

The only part of the ban that is somewhat founded on reality is the standard capacity ban.

Not saying it is right, but it is the only part that actually makes a minute amount of sense.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Sodium Benz,

How exactly does the ban on new magazines over 10 rounds make sense? How do you think it is founded in reality?

I ask this because I used to believe the same thing. Perhaps you are now thinking as I once did. Give me a logical explanation if you don't mind; either here or in a PM.

-Dave

 

[Matt G]

I may continue, for a while, to smile and bow and scrape and kowtow to my Masters and their occupying army of six or seven hundred thousand hired triggermen, and to pretend to comply.

But all love and all respect will have died in me. I may not be strong enough to become a very dangerous man, but I hope and pray I will find the courage to be as dangerous as a powerless man can. And may God give me the strength to be truly dangerous.

Oh, for pity's sake!

Who, pray tell, are these "hired triggermen?" All L.E.O.s? Let me let you in on a little secret: Local law enforcement doesn't care about federal bans. We (yes, I am a local LEO) don't go mucking about through your magazines to see if this one is standard cap or that one is reduced cap. We are NOT "triggermen," anymore than the rest of the august company here are. Are there some agencies that are enthusiastic about supporting such silly, intolerable interference to the rights of the citizenry? You bet.

But not all, nor most. Not by a long shot.

We all know you were attempting to wax poetic, but what you did was insult many of us, and demean the appropriate indignance of the rest of us.

 

[GigaBuist]

We all know you were attempting to wax poetic, but what you did was insult many of us, and demean the appropriate indignance of the rest of us.

I didn't take it as a shot at LEO's, but rather at the standing federal army + FBI + ATF + IRS agents out there. I have no problem what so ever with how the local LEOs present themselves. The manner in which the FBI, ATF, and IRS conduct themselve is a bit worrisome to me in a number of ways. Elaboration probably isn't necessary there.

As for the standing army: It's reasonable to hold that as suspicious. It was not part of the original design of the USA. Personally, I agree with having a standing army in this day and age but I'll be damned if I turn a blind eye to what it's doing and how it's run and just accept it as a normal part of life that it exists.

Thumper, with regards to the "You ARE kidding, right?" question I might be able to shed some more light on Maimaktes' post.

While I by no means am in the same situation as Maimaktes this ban HAS cost me financially. I have purchased arms because there's a bit "what if" hanging out there. What if they actually try and disarm the citizenry? I have poured money into ammo, gas, range time, etc to get out there and practice something that I hope I never need to use. It's nothing extreme but it has altered my behaviour. It has opened my eyes, and people that have known me for quite some time occasionally balk and the things that come out of my mouth.

Money that would have gone to computer equipment to help better myself at my trade has been funneled into firearms. More than is necessary to keep a healthy supply of general shooting going on. Again, nothing too extreme though.

Time that would have gone into researching my field has been devoted to studying the laws, current politics, history, etc. Certainly not time wasted, but it's something that I would not have to do if politicians and the populance didn't want to disarm me and strip away the rest of my natural rights.

Soap box, ballot box, mail box, cartridge box. Those are our options. We need people working in all directions. If worse come to worse... it's the cartridge box.

Me personally? I push forward on all four boxes. I see nothing morally wrong with somebody doing their part and preparing for the cartridge box though. If that's the route they think things are headed for so be it. It might be a little neurotic -- but it's certainly not insane!

If a fellow lifts your shirt and pulls your sidearm from you you immedately know he's about to do something to you that you're not going to like. Some (very logically) see things like the AWB doing just that. The only point in removing arms from a person is to prevent them from defending themselves against whatever's coming next. Well, that and to give a slew of people around the country "warm fuzzies" knowning that only criminals have guns, or something like that.

I've rambled on long enough.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Well said.

 

[Cosmoline]

Every google hit I've found lists it as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. Maybe there was another piece of restrictive legislation in '91 you were thinking about?

I may be thinking about an import ban, but I too am coming up blank on it. Probably a case of wires getting crossed.

I agree, though, that the high-cap ban is certainly a good reason to oppose the bill.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Cosmoline, you are probably thinking about 1991’s de facto “weapons of mass destruction†ban.

~G. Fink

 

[rick_reno]

You're all a bunch of paranoid gun nuts. What would give you any indication that our "public servants" want to restrict your Rights as defined in the 2nd Amendment?

It couldn't be the 1968 GCA - could it?
It couldn't be the 1986 FOPA - could it?
It couldn't be the 1989 Bush ban on imports - could it?
It couldn't be the 1994 Brady Bill - could it?
It couldn't be the 1994 AWB - could it?
It can't be the support of Bush II for an extension of the '94 AWB - could it?
and no way could it be McCain's support for closing the gun show loophole - could it?

You all worry too much. Don't worry - our "public servants" will take care of us. After all, they've all taken an oath swearing to "preserve, protect and defend" or "support and defend" the Constitution of the United States. I can't imagine them doing anything other than exactly that.

Oath of the President -

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Oath of the Vice President -

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Oath of those great protectors of Freedom - the Congress

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

and last, but not least the Oath of the Supreme Court

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

 

[benEzra]

The Federal ban on over-10-round magazines was most certainly part of the 1994 Clinton "Pork 'n Bans" bill and did not exist in Federal law before that time. A couple of states had magazine capacity limits (Hawaii was one, IIRC), but there was no federal restriction whatsoever. The 1991 section 922(r) import rules limited the import of SKS's with detachable magazines (IIRC), and that may be what you are thinking of, but this did NOT affect non-922(r) guns.