Do you think the AR-15 Will Ever Get Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ghostrider_23

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
413
Do you think the AR-15 Will Ever Get Ban??

How and why????

I post this question because I have seen Ca. try and the different ways manufactors and people have gotten around the law.

I can also see the price of ammo going throught the roof, I guess if you have one the law makers will see to it you won't be able to shot it for long.

What will you do if such a law is passed in your state????
 
Banned on the federal level? Probably not. There are so many of them out there, it'd be pretty tough to do.

Regulated out of existence? There's a distinct possibility. Large excise taxes on centerfire ammo and semi-automatic weapons could turn it into a rich man's toy, kind of like how full-auto is.
 
I could see a new, stronger gun ban ban being pushed though sometime in 2009 if the Democrats win. I'm sure the scary black rifles would be near the top of the ban list.
 
A ban is possible, esp if Dems get in. Any ban would probably be the manufacture of new receivers. So any receivers out there would still be legal.

A state-wide ban may be more likely in your state or other states.

I have a few stripped receivers, but mainly because I'm planning on doing a AR-15 SBR and pistol build in the next 6-12 months.
 
Yes, Without a Doubt.

How?
With the stroke of Hillery's pin.

When?
Soon after the next presidential election, and Hil or Oboma takes office.

1224.jpg
rcmodel
 
What will you do if such a law is passed in your state????
Colt AR-15's and Colt Sporters are illegal in Connecticut. If you owned them when the ban was passed, you could get a certificate of posession and could keep the the firearm. Otherwise youre out of luck. Considering the prison penalties awaiting a violator, very few people violate the law.
 
I think they will certainly keep trying to ban AR15s; but they are getting to be so numerous that soon they are going to have trouble trying to pull that off. If Heller goes against them, then that won't help either.

All in all, I think the antis are in a position where if they don't get it in the four years or so, they might never get another broad ban like the 1994 ban through.
 
I think it will never happen.
The Dems are still paying for the 1994 AWB,losing Congress for a dozen years,costing Gore the Presidency in 2000.Even Slick Willy agrees to that.
As B.Roberts stated they will keep trying.They're dysfunctional.They can't help themselves.
But they will not succeed.
 
I'm sure many many people want to ban them, but I'd be suprised to if actually happens. With the Heller case comming to the court in March, I expect we'll hear a ruling that ther RKBA is an individual right, and in light of that there'll be people suing to overturn the various assault weapon bans.

It's way too early to light up a cigar, but... The question lies more in the verdits of the court rather than who gets elected. The rulings are in all liklihood going to decide who wins as they'll come in right in the middle of the election.
 
Absolutely the AR-15 can. In fact I would argue it would be right with or behind the AK as the liberals can label it a "Military Firearm". And that strikes flavor in the mouths of hungry Senators buying to gain their next term in office as a platform to spring board from :(
 
If the Supreme Court affirms that the 2nd Amendment means what we all know it means, then no.

The AR-15 would be protected as a firearm, and if viewed in a historical context in relating to the militia (the militia was supposed to be armed with equivalent fighting rifles of the standing army) then the AR-15 would not only NOT be banned, but rather Constitutionally encouraged until we adopt something new.
 
Wont matter. The supreme court can declare the 2nd as applying to individuals and it maybe stops the federal level bans on whole classes of firearms (like handguns).

This decision will not stop states or cities from pushing their anti-gun agenda. California has successfully castrated an entire class of firearms with their restrictions and out right bans. I think the mag restrictions are just as heinous. The 2nd amendment will have no teeth until it is incorporated and forced down their throats.

What may save the AR15 is that it is now pretty much mainstream at ranges across the free states. Only the most stupid of the Fudds does not see this.

-T
 
If the Supreme Court affirms that the 2nd Amendment means what we all know it means, then no.
I wish it were so. I predict the SC's ruling will be based on the limited circumstances surrounding DC's ban and its decision will be commensurately narrow. If they rule that the 2A does in fact address an individual right (which I think they will), sure, DC's total ban will be history. It's likely that means any total, all-encompassing ban will also be considered unlawful, and the debate over whether the 2A addresses an individual right or "collective right" will be resolved once and for all. :neener:

But don't start celebrating - that doesn't mean other states and cities that have enacted enormous hurdles to thwart legal gun ownership will have to change a thing. Simply owning a firearm in New Jersey, for instance, requires a Herculean effort in climbing legal hurdles. That state also effectively prohibits carrying, as is possible with any state that doesn't have a "shall-issue" statute. Such Brady utopias will not be affected, no matter what happens in the USSC. :(

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong - I sure would like some good news! But in my opinion, states where the sun never set on the AWB won't be affected by this decision. If you can't own an AR-15 now, don't think you'll suddenly be able to after the SCOTUS ruling.
 
I don't think we'll ever see anything more restrictive than the old federal ban, because any more restrictive and bubba loses his huntin' gun. That would be an extreme case though. I don't think congress will push for a ban. Remember again that this time 'round, we're in a MUCH better position than 1994. Hell, Giuliani, an anti in many people's eyes won't really touch the issue in the debates. If this were 1994, he'd be calling for an AWB. Major news networks have pro-gun anchors.Times have changed folks and we are winning.
 
H.R. 1022 and another Senate equivelant are there now and are more draconian than the '94 ban. The M-1 Carbine is included, and wasn't on the 94 list.
The only upside is these don't stand a good chance, really.
But the antis are still out there trying, so let's not forget it.
 
Last edited:
I think we are more likely to see a ban get passed if an anti-gun Republican like Romney or Giuliani win the election, than if it is Hillary or Obama.
 
I think they will be banned in CT. Ak's and colt ar-15's are already banned along with many other firearms singled out by model names (makes no sense)

Since colt's are made here, I can't understand why colt ar's are banned but the same product made out of state by any other manufacturer is legal. ***?
 
Colt AR-15's and Colt Sporters are illegal in Connecticut. If you owned them when the ban was passed, you could get a certificate of posession and could keep the the firearm. Otherwise youre out of luck. Considering the prison penalties awaiting a violator, very few people violate the law.

However, the gun manufacturers did an awesome job outthinking the gun banners in CT... I have a nice Bushmaster XM-15... It is an AR-15 by any other name.

The irony though is Colt AR-15 banned in the very home state Where Colt was founded and based,,, sickening! :barf:
 
IMO , If Hillary gets elected there WILL be an AWB . If Obama or Giuliani get elected I think they would try to ban the RKBA .
IMO , Romney would keep things as they are now . While he was the Governor of Mass. , he could have banned so called "assault weapons" and/or concealed carry . In this mostly liberal , anti gun state it would have been easy for him to ban things .
 
Weird that so many are waiting on the USSC to decide whether the right enumerated in the 2nd constitutes an individual right. THAT fact is already written into law!
Oct 26, 2005: Public Law No: 109-92.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

...
(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are as follows:...

(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.


I am no Constitutional scholar, but seems to me that has already been decided, this is now the LAW OF THE LAND. Any infringments on this right, such as those asses in Cook County are attempting, or even another AWB, should REQUIRE the President calling forth the National Guard to subue the "unlawful combination" trying to impose it.

The USSC will decide:

Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
 
Romney would keep things as they are now . While he was the Governor of Mass. , he could have banned so called "assault weapons" and/or concealed carry . In this mostly liberal , anti gun state it would have been easy for him to ban things .

What? Romney not only supports a federal "assault weapon" ban (he said it on a nationally televised debate), he signed a permanent one for Mass. in 2004.
 
What? Romney not only supports a federal "assault weapon" ban (he said it on a nationally televised debate), he signed a permanent one for Mass. in 2004.

That was just a mirror of the Fed ban. He did not outright ban all ARs, just those with additional evil features. Post-ban style ARs are still available to buy new in MA. You just can't have an FS, bayo lug, or collapsing stock.

I'm not saying I like what he did, but it's at least not a complete ban of anything semi-auto with a detachable mag.
 
"President calling forth the National Guard to subue the "unlawful combination" trying to impose it."

that would be something allright :p
 
The Dems are still paying for the 1994 AWB,losing Congress for a dozen years,costing Gore the Presidency in 2000.Even Slick Willy agrees to that.

They are back in power and have a shot at the White House. They could care less about 1994, because they rightly believe the American public has forgotten about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top