Assault Weapons Ban and Presidential Candidates?

[GuyWithQuestions]

Forgive me for my ignorance.

I was wondering about all this talk about the assault weapons ban from presidential candidates. On this website http://www.issues2000.org/Gun_Control.htm, some said that they support the assault weapons ban. Forgive my ignorance, but what would be included in that? "Assault Weapons" sounds quite subjective, because you could argue that anything has no defensive value and is only assault and military like, while at the same time arguing that everything is more defensive than assault. One example that I was wondering about, my Springfield Armory handgun case says "Not Legal in California" because the magazine has more than 10 rounds in it. Would that be considered an assault weapon in the assault weapons ban? Does it only mean semi-automatic assault rifles (such as AK 47's), or a step up like battle rifles? What's included? What's not? This might be valuable information to know when I vote.

Thanks

 

[Zoogster]

Assault weapon has no set definition. It would be similar to the old one, and grow to include new terms and more and more weapons as time goes on. It can be semi auto rifles with detachable mags and scary looks, or weapons that hold over 10 rounds. It can change to be weapons that hold over 5 rounds, because the hunting often limits you to 5 anyways, so why would you need more than 5 to hunt?
Waterfowl only allows 3 rounds or less, so maybe shotguns with over 3 rounds are assault weapons?

It is entirely subjective. The term originaly was applied to things like AK and AR firearms. Then it expanded to include several pistols, often those with noteriety and unique appearances like the tec-9.
The definition varies from state to state, and official to official.
With a democratic congress and most presidential candidates in favor of gun control, including all the Democrats and half the republicans it is quite likely one will happen.

It is entirely subjective, and a does not really mean anything is not fair game. What it does mean is it will be AT LEAST as inclusive as the last one, and likely add new catagories every so often.

All semi auto might become "assault weapons". There is no definition, it is whatever those in office decide can "assault" someone.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Basically, it's all the military-weapon clones. AKs, ARs, HKs, Uzis, etc. You know the guns that make up the majority of sales. Semi-automatic copies of machineguns.

I wouldn't worry as heavily as in '94. We have the advantage of the internet this time around, so we can all get our stuff together to challenge any ban that comes our way. In 1994, I think many AW owners thought that they were in the minority and kept things quiet. Now, AWs are the majority of weapons sold. I mean hell, when was the last time you logged onto an internet forum and saw the majority of questions dedicated to hunting rifles? In 1994, the rhetoric was, "well, these guns are sometimes used for hunting and you can target shoot with them- so they're kinda sporty". Now it's, "Who the hell cares about sporting purposes. We all know what my AK is for, that's why I bought it. Come 'n' get it..." In 1994 CCW was a radical idea. Today, it's as common as chewing gum. Can you imagine opening discussing concealing a handgun pre-1994? People would think you were going to rob a bank... now, thanks to the internet, we all know better.

I think if people in 1994 had "Molon Labe" stickers on their car, they'd be branded by the media as radicals. Heck, without the internet, many of us would probably believe the media and say things like, "Molon Labe... must be some sort of White Supremacist talk!".

My point is that regardless of the nature of the ban, we can probably defeat it. We are in the right. When you are 100% right, it's really easy to defend your position. We are also in a MUCH better position than in 1994. Sites like THR also prove that 2A isn't only a Republican thing. It's a majority thing on the right and a minority thing on the left. So that makes it at least over 50% of people in our favor...

I think you all get the picture...

We're winning.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

If they were to pass an assault weapons ban, would I have to give up my Springfield XD-9 since it has 16+1 rounds (I always like to top it off just like some do with gasoline in their vehicles and ice cream that they dish up for themselves)? It is actually a sub-compact, so I can either use the regular grip with 16 rounds, or the sub-compact grip which is 10 rounds. Would they say "Give the whole thing to us anyway, even if you can just give us that one 16 round magazine"? I take it they wouldn't reimburse me with money or another gun?

 

[nwilliams]

What you already own will most certainly be safe, it would be grandfathered into the system.

If a new ban were to be passed then it would probably only limit manufacturers from producing certain products. Things would have to go pretty sour for the government to say you have to give up what you already own. Its possible a new AWB will come to be if someone like Hillary or Obama (a chill just ran down my spine saying that) were to take office, however I doubt it will be high on their priority list. As long as things stay quiet while the new president is in office things should be ok, lets just pray nothing happens to provoke them into doing anything. The fact is its pretty much a given that whoever takes office will not be gun friendly so we just have to stand up for our rights and not allow the anti-community's voices to be heard over ours.

There's no definite answer to your question because nobody really knows what will happen down the line. However I'm quite positive that the government won't come banging on your door demanding that you hand things over to them. If they try to, well then.....Molon Labe!

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Things would have to go pretty sour for the government to say you have to give up what you already own.

Don't be so sure.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,' I would have done it!"

- Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) 1994 (Following passage of the Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon Ban)

Wanna guess how many votes she can get in a Democrat controlled senate and a democratic vice-president casting any tie-breaking votes?

 

[RoadkingLarry]

If we get an anit-gun president and an anti-gun legislature all bets are off. Look to HR1022 as a starting place. and don't count on any grandfather clauses. Nothing says they have to allow yuo to keep anything if they pass a law to take it.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

If we get an anit-gun president and an anti-gun legislature all bets are off. Look to HR1022 as a starting place. and don't count on any grandfather clauses. Nothing says they have to allow yuo to keep anything if they pass a law to take it.


I think that there were enough votes in the senate to renew the original AWB in 2004, but there were then some amendments added which were poison pills and caused it to go down on the final vote. I could be mistaken about that.

I wouldn't bet on any grandfather clause if we have the Democrats controlling both the House and the Senate, and a Democrat in the White House. You'll see an AWB with very broad coverage, no sunset date (permanent), and likely no grandfather clause within the first 6 months after the new Democrat president is sworn into office. D.C. vs. Heller may have some effect on that, depending upon how the USSC comes down with their decision.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The problem is enforcement. Who is gonna go door to door and look for these things, the states? Some states will refuse to participate in that.
A few news feeds of door kickers taking grandads' semi deer rifle (which would be banned under some of the proposals) isn't going to play well.

This is why I believe they will avoid a direct ban and go after the ammo.

Not sure how many of you are, but I am a cigar smoker. Recent legislation introduced would have raised the tax on cigars from about 4.8 cents each to Ten Dollars Each, a 20,000 percent tax increase. The measure has been stalled for the moment, but think of a similar tax on ammo. You don't have to ban any firearms at all if ammo is $10 a round.....and the reason the Democrats used for this new tax? "the children" of course......

My paranoid side is telling me to quit buying guns and buy ammo and components as fast as I can.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Not sure how many of you are, but I am a cigar smoker. Recent legislation introduced would have raised the tax on cigars from about 4.8 cents each to Ten Dollars Each, a 20,000 percent tax increase. The measure has been stalled for the moment, but think of a similar tax on ammo. You don't have to ban any firearms at all if ammo is $10 a round.....and the reason the Democrats used for this new tax? "the children" of course......


TProhibitive taxes on ammo is an idea which is very old and started with Daniel Patrick Moynahan, US Senator from New York. He floated this idea about 20 years ago, IIRC. It is a worrysome idea. However, I don't think the USSC would allow it, anymore than they'd allow the government to tax paper at 10,000%. Of course, the ACLU would yell bloody murder about that, but would be completely silent on prohibitive ammo taxes because they believe the 2nd A. only protect "states rights" to arm their militias. The government would not tax any ammo purchased for the military, guard and reserve units, or law enforcement. The ACLU would be just fine with that.

 

[Autolycus]

TexasRifleman: Got a link to the legislation that you mentioned which gives cigars a $10.00 tax?

 

[JimmyN]

I would bet on grandfathering, as they have always done.

They don't have the money to buy all the existing firearms back, they have no choice but to grandfather what is already out there.

And IMHO any representative proposing legislation to sieze property from citizens without compensation would have a very short political career, even if it was firearms.

 

[Autolycus]

JimmyN: Your not familiar with this thread.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Got a link to the legislation that you mentioned which gives cigars a $10.00 tax?

Here's an article, there are tons.

Go to the Rocky Patel website, he's got a whole ton of stuff about it.

It seems to be stalled in committee for the moment.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/07/cigar_tax.html

 

[ServiceSoon]

Beer has a 44% tax on its retail price. Most people don't know that.

 

[RP88]

oh wow...so:

They want people to be able to sue gun manufacturers over ANYTHING that was out of their hands but caused by a gun, they want semi-auto guns in general banned, and worst of all, some candidates choose these courses of action over enacting harsher laws against criminal acts. They voted NO on passing harsher penalties against criminal acts involving drugs and firearms

those bold lines, right there, are pathetic IMO

then, they try to say they are doing it for the kids, just like how banning videogames and explicit music is for the kids as well. I'm not the biggest fan of the reps, either, but at least their stances make sense and have a degree of rationale, even if I dont support them. The dems are getting flat-out ridiculous the more I keep reading. They could have definitely chosen better candidates.