AWB in Jan.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bazooka Joe71

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
2,803
Location
Southern Indiana
I have been hearing all of this fuss about the AWB in coming in Jan. and Bush is going to sign it. I guess my question is this...As far as the AWB goes, for AR's is it just the lower that is going to be illegal to buy? Or is it the lower with a collapsable stock? Both? Or is it the whole gun.

Sorry for the dumb question, but I am ignorant towards the whole thing.

I am asking this, because I was thinking about buying a couple of lowers while I still can.

Thanks
 
The radical Democrats would want to ban all firearms. A lot of people condemn Bush for his comment about signing it if Congress passed it. He made that comment being fully aware that with the Republican Congress he would never see it. Call it politics to gain some votes.

There are many pro-gun Democrats. Between this and not wanting to get people mad at them in order to get the White House in 2008 I don't think they'll try anything too radical until after the 2008 election.

Just my opinion.
 
There are, of course, the loose cannons. Schumer already has alienated a lot of people by, the other day, claiming that Reaganism was dead.

I'd not put it past him to start with a screaming anti-gun speech.
 
I guess my question is this...As far as the AWB goes, for AR's is it just the lower that is going to be illegal to buy? Or is it the lower with a collapsable stock? Both? Or is it the whole gun.
You're making the assumption that someone here can accurately and exactly predict the future.
 
There won't be an AWB for a while. The Dems will have their hands full trying to raise the minimum wage, impeach Bush, implement Universal health care, etc. When they do get around to an AWB, it'll take some time to wind it's way through the process, as the NRA will be on it every step of the way. And I'd imagine Bush would veto it... he has to have received a loud-and-clear message that people are sick of neo-conservatism, and they want actual conservatism back. Well, at least, I hope he has... :uhoh:
 
Thats why I asked the question. I didn't know if everything is up in the air, or if there is curtain parts on a gun that can be deemed illegal and others that can not.
 
I didn't know if everything is up in the air,
Nobody else does either - it's all conjecture at this point.

if there is curtain parts on a gun that can be deemed illegal and others that can not.
Any part could be deemed illegal; triggers, barrels, uppers, lowers, stocks, color, sights. It's all in how a law is written and how things are defined.

IF a new AWB were to be proposed, no one has any idea of what would be included or exactly how an AW would be defined. Such a law, IF passed, might well bear no semblence at all to what was initially proposed.
 
Yeah, it's all speculation at this point. I'm getting lowers and suchlike to be on the safe side, but I'd say odds are we won't have anything to worry about for a while yet. They only barely have control of congress, and will have other priorities for a while yet once they reconvene. That said, if you want to be on the safe side now's a good time to start stocking up on lowers and magazines.

IF they re-enacted the AWB exactly as it was written before, then you would have to prove the arm was an "assault weapon" prior to the date the ban passed in order to be grandfathered in. Same thing for your magazines - last time it was illegal to buy mags of over 10 round capacity made after the cut-off date.

The cheapest way to do this if you're making several ARs is to build up several stripped lowers with their internal parts kit, plop a single complete upper and buttstock on each lower in turn, and photograph them each say in front of a news station with the date showing on your TV. That's if you got into court over it.

More likely, having a serial number in the "pre-ban" range would be sufficient.

Come to think of it, was ANYONE prosecuted under the AWB last time? I don't recall ever hearing of a case.

-K
 
Not a bad question at all, its on their list of stuff to screw us on but we should be ok for a while. First off they know they cannot confiscate all those weapon so the only way they can do it is to grandfather them in. Second they dont want the constituency mad at them before the 2008 election. If you want to help, educate those who will listen and join the NRA and be active in your area.
 
I am in the "not likely until after 2008" camp, but there is the outside chance that they'll try and push something through sooner. I hope they do try, make a big stink about it, and fail publicly before 2008 so Pro-gun candidates can claim that they are "hung up on passing failed legislation that has been tried and proven not to work". (How's that for political ammunition?)

On the other hand, I have stepped up plans to build another FAL and will be buying a DSA upper shortly after Christmas. If another ban starts to push its way through congress, look for prices to go up and availability to drop. Also, There is no guarantee that a new AWB will have a Grandfather Clause. Most anti's claim that the Grandfather Clause was one of the worst parts of the '94 ban, and would love to see it stripped from any new legislation. Now a AWB without a GF clause would be VERY difficult to pass, but stranger things have happened, especially if the Dems have strong victories in 2008.
 
Heck, the rising price of metal and lucrative military contracts are already restricting ammo sales. I don't remember when a box of .223 ever cost this much.

The Dems have many higher priorities. Minimum wage, climate change, health care and shedding some light on the past six years so we can see the cockroaches scuttle. Most of them understand that gun control is an election loser. Even if they'd like to knock on your door and make you fork over the hog leg they realize it will be bad for business.

I wouldn't put it past the Decider to sign an AWB. He said several times that he'd have been glad to sign an extension to the old one. And since the die-hard Party Faithful would support him even if he sacrificed little children to Satan on national television he probably would have.

The next question is if they don't try will anyone here modify their opinions in even the slightest degree?
 
Their might not be a serious Federal push for an AWB, but I know several states, whose legislatures are now solid Democrat, and the Gorvernor is Dem, will have AWBs pushed through both houses and signed into law. Actually, One of those states is New Hampshire.
 
I know many people are stocking up on lowers. But (assuming current rifles will be grandfathered in any new AWB) I thought you had to have a complete rifle rather than just a lower in order to be grandfathered.
 
Their might not be a serious Federal push for an AWB, but I know several states, whose legislatures are now solid Democrat, and the Gorvernor is Dem, will have AWBs pushed through both houses and signed into law. Actually, One of those states is New Hampshire.

Do you have evidence that this is taking place? I've heard no such thing. I think governor Lynch, though a Democrat, would veto it. He is a hunter, and knows it'd also cost him most of his supporters.
 
That depends Tellner,

If they don't try because they are too busy with Iraq and other issues, then I will still be a little leery come 2008. However, if Schumer or Feinstien propose some new legislation and the new Democrats shout them down, I'll be giving (D) candidates some serrious consideration in 2008.

The Republicans seem to need to spend some time in the dog house before they straighten up and fly right, I just wish we could do that with out jeapodizing our Rights.
 
I thought you had to have a complete rifle rather than just a lower in order to be grandfathered.

The reciever is stamped with the serial number, and is considered the assault rifle part of the entire weapon, due to the magazine and nasty protrusion of the pistol grip. The anti's know that it is not possible for them to get these weapons even with weapons by backs it would not happen, I wont give up mine and I am sure that many others would not either.

My opinions are not made up for Dems as of yet, need to see what the conservative ones are gonna do, and express to them in letters that voting for an AWB or any other gun legislation that takes away more gun rights would be detrimental to their careers and that they would not be recieving my vote.
 
They can, of course, ban further importation of parts kits.
Already done, via BATFE fiat, if I recall correctly.
(Though again I may be misremembering, I believe the ban is on parts kits with the barrel so that might also settle out into just making the available parts kits legal, albeit with a new domestically made barrel. Not entirely a bad thing, seeing the condition of some of what comes into the country. :p )

Of course, they could always restrict ammo sales, instead...
That's my biggest worry. But then there's always reloading. No way they can touch that without getting a fair number of hunters, CAS shooters, etc up in arms.

If that happened, two words:

"What gun?"

No, two words:
Molon Labe


Anyhow, at this point not much to worry about yet I think. Just a matter of preparing for a possible future rainy day.
 
I think governor Lynch, though a Democrat, would veto it. He is a hunter, and knows it'd also cost him most of his supporters.
Now you know Lynch is not overly gunowner friendly. He is rated C- by the NRA.
Lynch was the only governor in 2006 to veto a “Stand your ground” bill. The bill would have stated that crime victims who are attacked in a public place do not have to retreat before defending themselves, and that deadly force can be used against any felony attack.
I am pretty sure he would sign into law a AWB if it passes both Democrat held state houses. Hopefully it won't happen but since many of the Democrat legislators, have stated they will vote for an AWB, it does not look good for NH.
 
Perhaps we need to start getting active up here, ladies and gents.

Anyone up for a meet and greet, to get the ball rolling?
 
I believe that most of these freshman Democrats would like to keep their jobs beyond two years, they remember that gun control cost them the congress in 1994. I don't think they will repeat that same mistake again. Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, they can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk? I dont think the mainstream Democrats would go along with another AWB, most of the freshman Democrats stated they were pro-gun during the campaign. I also do not believe that these freshman Democrats will get on the left wing extremist trainwreck with Pelosi. Politicians want to get RE-ELECTED! Passing another AWB is not going to get them there, it will get them a ticket home!

Pelosi has already failed her fist leadership test, the fiasco of supporting Murtha for majority leader, Henny Stoyer demolished him.
 
Call it politics to gain some votes.

But it lost him votes, and given that his party had swept into power not six years before in no small part because of it's opposition to such a ban, it was irrational to think that it would gain him votes. Heck, even the Dems know that it costs them votes, and their base tends to LIKE that sort of thing!

No, he supported gun control because he wants gun control. He'd have supported more of it, if he thought he could get away with it. Don't count on Bush to stop any attacks on our rights the Dems send his way. He's planing on "reaching out to" them, and this is doubtless one of the things he's looking forward to working together on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top