What was the last gun ban?

[hossdaniels]

I am not quite old enough to remember the last gun ban, I only remember it being lifted. What was the last gun ban about? Semi's were still "allowed" right?

Whats your guess about obama? Same, better, or worse than clinton?

 

[JonB]

Should probably move this thread to the General forum and not Rifle Country.

My take is Obama has way more pressing needs on his plate right now.

Read Here

 

[CJ]

I refer to the last gun ban (so called 'assault-weapons ban') as the 'Hollywood ban'. It largely banned anything that looked scary in movies.

One video demonstration (by a police office, no less) demonstrated removing the receiver assembly of a hunting rifle, putting it in an aftermarket stock, and it magically became a banned assault weapon.

Shortly after it was passed, I recall a gun show basically attaching parts to a broom (folding stock, large magazine, etc.) and, by the definition of the ban, claimed it would be considered an assault weapon.

According to Wikipedia, it covered:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding stock
* Conspicuous pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

As you can see, items such as flash suppressors have no impact on the threat posed by a firearm, but they look 'cool' or 'scary', so they become a component. And a bayonet mount? Really, how many bayonetings did such a law prevent?

I seem to recall a report presented by the ATF that essentially stated that the ban had no statistically significant effect of crime, but can't seem to locate this.

Rather than understand the analysis and conclude that this type of law is useless for preventing crimes, I expect Obama and the anti groups to instead conclude that it simply wasn't harsh enough and more limitations should be put in place.

 

[Shooter88]

Of course they'll push for more restrictions. It's not about preventing crimes - that's just what they want their loyal but stupid followers to keep thinking.

 

[hossdaniels]

Thanks for filling me in, I guess I was old enough, just not smart enough to pay attention yet.

 

[mr.scott]

If they wanted to prevent crime they would ban hi-point, jiminez and other super cheap guns.

 

[chris in va]

If they wanted to prevent crime they would ban hi-point, jiminez and other super cheap guns.

I wouldn't go THAT far, but people need to lock up their weapons when not in use.

 

[Jim Watson]

Depends on the priorities Obama and the inherited Clinton administration appointed officials set. They could do a quick job based on HR 1022 of the last Congress. which was basically a more restrictive extension of AWB 1994-2004 so as to leave them more time to concentrate on bailouts and payoffs at taxpayer expense, or they could start over, most likely with something more repressive yet.

See the HR 1022 hit list at:
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunLawUpdate3.htm

I doubt the new bunch will do any LESS and might well do more. Closing "the gun show loophole" will surely be included.

Sorry, folks, but the sky IS going to be falling on gunowners (among others.)

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I have to believe the NRA and certain other gun advocacy groups simply do not realize how many of their otherwise supportive readers they turn off with their shrill, exaggerated and false reporting.

Even when they get it 90 percent right, they just have to go off the deep end with some dumbass speculation and exaggeration, or poor legal analysis by non-lawyers. Shooting themselves in the foot, as it were.

 

[Baba Louie]

What was the last gun ban?

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
Charles Krauthammer (nationally syndicated columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

Cosmetic in nature, easily worked around to comply with the carefully worded language... it didn't stop anything really. Another toe in the water, testing the temperature for later goings on perhaps? It did help drive up the price of 10+ rd magazines for awhile, eliminated a lot of those pesky bayonet lugs and flash hiders became muzzle brakes. It also helped bring Republicans control of Congress... a tad late perchance and some might say, less than successful in the long run.

It did legitimize, in the eyes of the masses, the terms "Assault Rifle" or "Assault Weapon" in lieu of self loading or semi automatic rifle/weapon.

IIRC, it was only part of a large "Omnibus Crime Bill" (aka Brady Bill) that was going to put 100,000 cops on the streets and promote midnight basketball programs, things like that, which, as we know, did have some merit. (LE Agencies did get some $ from Uncle Sam). While the AWB did have a sunset clause, several of the States, who passed similar AWB laws following in Big Brothers path, did not have a drop dead date.

I don't recall now, exactly how or why the NRA came up w/ the NCIS "insta check" for ALL guns (not just handguns anymore) as the right compromise to keep the sharks happy (in other words, what did we save by allowing that additional oversight? hazy memory here)... but that too was a part of the last gun ban if the hazy memory is correct.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Of course it was midnight basketball.

When was the last time you saw a hockey player ask someone else to pay for his gear?

 

[jackdanson]

If they wanted to prevent crime they would ban hi-point, jiminez and other super cheap guns.

There is some merit to this. If they wanted to ban guns that are actually being used in crimes they would ban those models, instead of AR-15's which are very, very rarely used in crimes. Most of the hypnotized masses watch lethal weapon 3 and assume that is actually what happens out on the streets. Gangstas with full auto uzis and ak47s..... yeah right.. rare at best and ALWAYS illegally obtained in the first place. Anyways, I'd rather be shot at by a gangsta with a full auto mac-10 held sideways than a competent shooter with a 5 shot .357.

btw, I'm not for banning those guns, just making the statement that they are used in substantially more crimes than "assault" weapons.

When was the last time you saw a hockey player ask someone else to pay for his gear?

That would get really expensive, really quick!!!

 

[Kind of Blued]

If they wanted to prevent crime they would ban hi-point, jiminez and other super cheap guns.

If they wanted to prevent crime, they would arrest all of the criminals.

“The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.”
- Col. Jeff Cooper

 

[athensguy]

And just why are there so many criminals in the US? Because it has the largest body of criminal law in the world and already has a significantly larger, by percentage, prison population than any other developed country. If you want to get rid of crime, you need to get rid of the "war on drugs", which is really just a war on all Americans.

 

[ravonaf]

My take is Obama has way more pressing needs on his plate right now.

All it takes is a signature. I'm sure he can find the time if he really wanted to.

If you want to get rid of crime, you need to get rid of the "war on drugs", which is really just a war on all Americans.

+1

 

[CoRoMo]

In answer to your question, I'd say he's worse. He has stated his position against all semi-automatic firearms, period.

My take is Obama has way more pressing needs on his plate right now.

Maybe so, but he won't hesitate to scribble his name onto the next AWB that the rabid anti's in Congress send to his desk, and you best believe that there are several Congressmen/women that have an AWB as priority #1 for the coming session.

 

[goldie]

There has also been talk of a 500.00 federal tax on all new firearm purchases.(if theres anything left to buy).so a henry 22 youth bolt rifle would cost about 700.00.all that would hurt is someone who would like to start their kid off with a little 22 bolt to shoot targets with.what a shame.this federal tax isnt going to stop someone who is going to shoot up some place & kill himself.if he charged the gun on a credit card he wont be around to worry how to pay the bill.....